DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2015/4951)

DJD BRICK & BLOCKLAYING PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2015 - 2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 18 SEPTEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the DJD Brick & Blocklaying Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the DJD Brick & Blocklaying 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 18 September 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 25 September 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 the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and DJD Brick & Blocklaying Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with approving the collective agreement between the union and the employer for the period 2015 to 2017. The union sought approval of the agreement, which was a standard form provided by the union and had been entered into by the parties. The employer contested the application, arguing that the agreement contained terms that were not in line with the employer's business model and that the union had not adequately consulted with its members before entering into the agreement.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and whether the union had acted in accordance with its obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission also considered whether the agreement contained terms that were fair and reasonable, and whether the union had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that its members were aware of and had an opportunity to express their views on the agreement. The Commission found that the union had not adequately consulted with its members and that some of the terms in the agreement were not in line with the employer's business model. However, the Commission ultimately approved the agreement, finding that the benefits to the employees outweighed any potential detriments to the employer.

The Commission held that the union had a duty to consult with its members and to ensure that they were aware of the terms of the agreement before entering into it. However, the Commission found that the union had not taken all reasonable steps to consult with its members and that some of the terms in the agreement were not in line with the employer's business model. Despite these concerns, the Commission approved the agreement, finding that the benefits to the employees outweighed any potential detriments to the employer. The Commission noted that the agreement contained a number of provisions that were beneficial to the employees, including provisions relating to wages, leave, and other employment conditions.

The final orders of the Commission were that the agreement be approved with certain modifications to address the concerns raised by the employer. The Commission also ordered that the union take steps to ensure that its members were aware of the terms of the agreement and had an opportunity to express their views on it. The Commission found that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and that the union had acted in good faith in entering into the agreement. The Commission's decision provides guidance to employers and unions on the importance of consulting with employees and ensuring that collective agreements are in the best interests of all parties.

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