DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2015/5261)

MJCR GROUP PTY LTD T-AS SOUTHSIDE CORP PTY LTD /CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2015-2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 16 OCTOBER 2015

Application for approval of the MJCR Group Pty Ltd t-as Southside Corp Pty Ltd /CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the MJCR Group Pty Ltd t-as Southside Corp Pty Ltd /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 16 October 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 23 October 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

In the matter of an application for approval of a collective agreement, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the MJCR Group Pty Ltd trading as Southside Corporation Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015-2017. The CFMEU contended that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees covered by it. The MJCR Group opposed the application, arguing that the agreement contained terms that were not in the best interests of the employees. The dispute came before the Fair Work Commission, presided over by Commissioner McGaughey.

The legal issues before the court were whether the agreement contained terms that were in the best interests of the employees, and if so, whether those terms were sufficiently justified. The court had to consider the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, including the definition of "best interests of employees" and the factors to be considered when determining whether an agreement was in the best interests of employees. The court also had to consider the evidence presented by both parties, including the submissions and arguments made by the CFMEU and the MJCR Group.

The court found that the agreement contained terms that were not in the best interests of the employees. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and found that the CFMEU had not demonstrated that the terms were in the best interests of the employees. The court found that the terms were not justified on the basis of the factors set out in the Fair Work Act. The court also found that the MJCR Group had demonstrated that the terms were not in the best interests of the employees. The court rejected the CFMEU's argument that the terms were necessary to protect the employees' interests. The court concluded that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act and dismissed the application for approval.

The court did not make any orders as the application for approval was dismissed. The court found that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act and was not in the best interests of the employees. The court's decision provides guidance on the factors to be considered when determining whether a collective agreement is in the best interests of employees and the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

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