DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2017/6411)

KONTRO GROUP PTY LTD T-AS URBAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2017- 2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 3 JANUARY 2018

Application for approval of the Kontro Group Pty Ltd t-as Urban Traffic Solutions / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2017- 2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Kontro Group Pty Ltd t-as Urban Traffic Solutions / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2017- 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by 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] 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 10 January 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union sought to have a collective agreement approved under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Kontro Group Pty Ltd, trading as Urban Traffic Solutions, was the employer. The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The crux of the disagreement was whether the proposed agreement contained provisions that were contrary to the public interest, as defined by section 11 of the Act, and if it complied with the requirements for an enterprise agreement as outlined in section 230 of the Act.

The court had to examine whether the agreement's provisions were fair and reasonable, considering the public interest, and whether the process leading to the agreement was legitimate and followed the prescribed procedures. The Commission needed to determine if the agreement contained mandatory terms that were not justifiable on the grounds of public interest or if the agreement had been appropriately negotiated and agreed upon by the parties involved.

The Fair Work Commission ruled that certain provisions of the agreement did not meet the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that the mandatory terms included in the agreement were not justifiable in the public interest and that the process leading to the agreement had not been conducted fairly and in good faith. Consequently, the Commission decided not to approve the agreement. The decision was based on the grounds that the provisions did not align with the public interest and that the negotiation process was flawed.

The final orders of the Commission were that the collective agreement proposed by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Kontro Group Pty Ltd, trading as Urban Traffic Solutions, was not to be approved. The Commission directed the parties to recommence negotiations to reach an agreement that met the requirements of the Fair Work Act and reflected the interests of both the employer and the employees.

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