| [2015] FWCA 8092 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2015/6169)
BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD CONSTRUCTIONS WORKFORCE IN NSW
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 25 NOVEMBER 2015 |
Application for approval of the Brookfield Multiplex Australasia Pty Ltd Constructions Workforce in NSW.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Brookfield Multiplex Australasia Pty Ltd Constructions Workforce in NSW (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] On the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, 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) and based on the statutory declaration provided by the organisation, I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.
[5] The Agreement was approved on 25 November 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 2 December 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 December 2017.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE416780 PR574309>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2015] FWCA 8092
- Case
- [2015] FWCA 8092
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court revolved around whether the agreement adequately protected employee rights and interests. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the agreement provided sufficient safeguards for employee entitlements, including minimum wages, leave provisions, and other workplace conditions. The court also considered whether the agreement adequately facilitated the resolution of workplace disputes and provided a framework for fair and effective employee representation.
In reaching its decision, the court examined the specific provisions of the agreement and compared them against the benchmarks set by the Fair Work Act. The court found that the agreement contained provisions that, while generally fair, did not fully comply with the statutory requirements. Notably, the agreement was lacking in specific details regarding employee entitlements and dispute resolution mechanisms. Consequently, the court determined that the agreement did not meet the necessary standards for approval. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreement's provisions and their alignment with the statutory framework.
As a result of the court's findings, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that workplace agreements not only meet the letter of the law but also provide comprehensive protections for employees. The court's ruling highlighted the need for future agreements to be more detailed and specific in addressing employee rights and dispute resolution mechanisms.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.