DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2015/5220)

SPANOS WATERPROOFING PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2015 - 2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 13 OCTOBER 2015

Application for approval of the Spanos Waterproofing Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015 - 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Spanos Waterproofing 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] 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 was approved on 13 October 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 20 October 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 July 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) sought approval of a collective agreement with Spanos Waterproofing Pty Ltd, covering the period 2015 to 2017, from the Fair Work Commission. The agreement contained provisions that the CFMEU argued were necessary for the protection of workers' rights and working conditions. The employer contested the agreement, particularly objecting to certain clauses that it believed were overly restrictive and potentially detrimental to its business operations.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the provisions in the collective agreement were appropriate and necessary for the protection of the workers' rights and conditions, and whether the employer's objections to certain clauses were justified. The Commission had to weigh the rights of the employees, as represented by the union, against the employer's right to manage its business in a commercially viable manner.

After examining the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Commission found that while some of the employer's objections were valid, the overall provisions of the agreement were necessary for the protection of workers' rights and conditions. The Commission approved the collective agreement with certain modifications to address the employer's concerns, ensuring a balance between the rights of the employees and the employer's business needs. The Commission's decision was that the agreement, as modified, was fair and appropriate and should be approved.

The final orders of the Commission included the approval of the collective agreement with the modifications noted, ensuring that the agreement would serve as a binding contract between the employer and the employees for the specified period.

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