DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2015/3511)

LACK GROUP CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2015-2019

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 14 AUGUST 2015

Application for approval of the Lack Group Construction Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2015-2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Lack Group Construction Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2015-2019 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] On the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, 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.

[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) and based on the statutory declaration provided by the organisation, I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 14 August 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 21 August 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 2 July 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Lack Group Construction Pty Ltd, sought approval for a collective agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The primary dispute centred on whether the collective agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while the CFMEU raised concerns about certain provisions, particularly those related to penalty rates and shift arrangements.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether the collective agreement complied with the procedural and substantive requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the agreement was made in good faith, if it was free from coercion, and if it provided a safety net of minimum terms and conditions. The court also had to consider whether the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable outcome for all parties involved.

The Fair Work Commission found that the collective agreement was procedurally sound and met the requirements for good faith and freedom from coercion. However, the court identified some provisions that did not provide a safety net of minimum terms and conditions, particularly concerning shift arrangements and penalty rates. The court ultimately concluded that the overall agreement was fair and reasonable and granted approval, subject to modifications to ensure compliance with the safety net provisions. The modifications included adjustments to the shift arrangements and the establishment of clear guidelines for penalty rates.

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