DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2015/2273)

CTA (VIC) PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU SHOP FITTING MANUFACTURING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 2 APRIL 2015

Application for approval of the CTA (Vic) Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Shop Fitting Manufacturing Enterprise Agreement 2015-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the CTA (Vic) Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Shop Fitting Manufacturing Enterprise 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 (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 9 April 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2018.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application for approval of a collective agreement between CTA (Vic) Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the necessary legal standards for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue was whether the agreement was a "direct replacement" of a previous agreement, and thus, exempt from the requirements of section 235 of the Fair Work Act. Section 235 mandates that an agreement be certified as "no disadvantage" to employees before it can be approved. The Commission had to determine if the new agreement was essentially a continuation of the old one or a new agreement requiring full certification.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the new agreement was not a direct replacement of the previous one and therefore not exempt from section 235. The Commission found that the new agreement contained significant changes that went beyond minor adjustments, making it a new agreement that required certification. As a result, the Commission concluded that the agreement did not meet the legal requirements for approval under the Act. The application for approval was dismissed.

No further orders were made as the application for approval was denied.

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