DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2015/6082)

AUSRISE ALUMINIUM PTY LIMITED / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2015-2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 11 NOVEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Ausrise Aluminium Pty Limited / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Ausrise Aluminium Pty Limited / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015-2017 (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. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[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 was approved on 11 November 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 18 November 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) applied to the Fair Work Commission for the approval of a collective agreement with Ausrise Aluminium Pty Limited for the period 2015-2017. The matter was heard by Commissioner Parker and Senior Legal Assistant, Ms L. C. The primary issue before the court was whether the agreement met the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine if the agreement complied with the provisions concerning good faith bargaining, protected action, and if it was in the best interests of the employees.

The court examined the submissions from both parties, focusing on the negotiation process and the content of the agreement. The CFMEU argued that the agreement was the result of good faith bargaining and protected action, while Ausrise Aluminium contended that certain provisions were not in the best interests of the employees. The court considered the principles of good faith bargaining, the nature of protected action, and the requirement for the agreement to be in the best interests of the employees. It was determined that the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements, primarily due to issues related to the best interests of the employees. The court found that certain provisions of the agreement did not adequately protect the interests of the employees, particularly in relation to redundancy payments.

In light of the findings, the Fair Work Commission did not approve the collective agreement. The court's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that collective agreements are negotiated in good faith and are in the best interests of the employees. The court's ruling highlights the need for careful consideration of all provisions within an agreement to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The decision serves as a reminder to both employers and unions of the obligations they have in the collective bargaining process.

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