DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2015/7147)

SRG BUILDING (NORTHERN) PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2015-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 12 JANUARY 2016

Application for approval of the SRG Building (Northern) Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the SRG Building (Northern) Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015-2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 19 January 2016. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 July 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v SRG Building (Northern) Pty Ltd, the dispute centred on the approval of a collective agreement between the respondent company and the union. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal tasked with evaluating the application for approval of the collective agreement, which covered a period from 2015 to 2018. The union argued that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, while the company contended that certain provisions were unreasonable and could adversely impact its business operations.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the collective agreement, as proposed, complied with the relevant legislative provisions and if it was in the best interests of the employees. Specifically, the Commission needed to assess the balance between the rights of the employees to be represented by a union and the rights of the employer to manage its business efficiently. The dispute also encompassed whether particular clauses within the agreement were reasonable, considering their potential impact on the employer's operations and the employees' working conditions.

The Commission carefully reviewed the collective agreement, weighing the interests of the employees against the potential detriment to the employer. It determined that the majority of the agreement's provisions were reasonable and in the best interests of the employees. However, certain clauses were found to be unreasonable due to their potential to cause significant operational challenges for the employer. The Commission's decision focused on striking a balance that preserved the integrity of the agreement while ensuring it did not impose undue hardship on the employer. Ultimately, the Commission approved the collective agreement with modifications to address the identified unreasonable provisions.

The final orders of the Commission included the approval of the collective agreement with specific amendments to the clauses deemed unreasonable. These changes ensured that the agreement was fair and reasonable, protecting both the employees' interests and the employer's operational needs. The decision underscored the importance of achieving a balanced approach in collective bargaining agreements, ensuring they serve the interests of all parties involved.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established