DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2015/4910)

ULTIMO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2015 – 2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 10 SEPTEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Ultimo Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Ultimo Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015-2018 (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 10 September 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 17 September 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFME) made an application for approval of the Ultimo Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015-2018. Ultimo is a concrete pouring company that entered into the agreement with the CFMEU. The dispute arose because the company claimed that the agreement was inconsistent with the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary issue before the Commission was whether the collective agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the company argued that the agreement contained provisions that were inconsistent with the Act, including provisions relating to the regulation of working hours, wages and conditions, and the resolution of disputes. The CFMEU, on the other hand, argued that the agreement was consistent with the Act and reflected the terms and conditions of employment agreed upon by the parties.

The Commission found that the agreement contained provisions that were inconsistent with the Fair Work Act. The Commission held that the agreement contained provisions that sought to regulate working hours, wages and conditions in a manner that was not authorised by the Act. The Commission also found that the agreement contained provisions that were inconsistent with the dispute resolution processes set out in the Act. The Commission concluded that the agreement was not capable of being approved as it did not comply with the requirements of the Act.

The Commission refused to approve the agreement. The Commission noted that the agreement contained provisions that were inconsistent with the Fair Work Act, and that the company had not demonstrated that the agreement was consistent with the Act. The Commission also noted that the agreement contained provisions that were not in the best interests of the employees, and that the CFMEU had not demonstrated that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission held that the agreement was not capable of being approved, and that it was not in the public interest to approve the agreement.

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