DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2015/2877)

MOMTAZ PTY LTD T/AS MOMTAZ TILING AND THE CFMEU TILELAYERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 9 JUNE 2015

Application for approval of the Momtaz Pty Ltd T/As Momtaz Tiling and the CFMEU Tilelayers Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Momtaz Pty Ltd T/As Momtaz Tiling and the CFMEU Tilelayers Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 (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 (CFMEU). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The CFMEU 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 is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 16 June 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2015.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union sought approval for the CFMEU Tilelayers Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015, which was to be applied to employees of Momtaz Pty Ltd trading as Momtaz Tiling. The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission, the body responsible for resolving employment-related issues under the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue before the Commission was whether the agreement contained provisions that were contrary to the public interest or that failed to meet the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the provisions related to union membership and the handling of union-related activities were in compliance with the Act and if they were fair and reasonable in the context of the enterprise.

The Commission examined the specific provisions of the agreement concerning union membership and activities. It considered whether these provisions were necessary to achieve the agreement's objectives and whether they were balanced and fair. The Commission noted that the agreement required employees to join the union as a condition of employment, which raised questions about the employees' freedom of association and the potential impact on those who might choose not to join the union. The Commission also looked into whether the provisions were necessary to maintain industrial peace and harmony in the enterprise. After careful consideration, the Commission found that the agreement contained provisions that were not in the public interest as they unduly restricted employees' rights regarding union membership and activities. Consequently, the Commission decided that the agreement did not meet the statutory criteria for approval.

In light of the findings, the Commission did not grant approval for the agreement. The decision was based on the conclusion that the provisions regarding union membership and activities were not fair and reasonable, and therefore, not in the public interest. The Commission's decision was made in accordance with the statutory requirements and the principles of fairness and balance in employment agreements. The final orders of the Commission included a refusal to approve the agreement, effectively leaving the parties to negotiate new terms that would comply with 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