DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2015/581)

EVS GROUP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (SECURITY) / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2015-2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE	SYDNEY, 30 MARCH 2015

Application for approval of the EVS Group Australia Pty Ltd (Security) / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015-2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the EVS Group Australia Pty Ltd (Security) / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2015-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 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. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) it will operate from 6 April 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and EVS Group Australia Pty Ltd, where the union sought approval of a collective agreement for the period 2015-2017. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval. The dispute centred on the enforceability of certain clauses within the agreement, specifically those related to employee entitlements and working conditions. The union argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while the employer contended that some provisions were overly restrictive and not in line with industry standards.

The central legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether it met the criteria for being a "good faith" agreement. This involved assessing whether the agreement was made without coercion, whether it provided for fair terms and conditions, and whether it included provisions for the resolution of disputes. The Commission had to balance the rights of the employees to be fairly represented with the employer's need to maintain operational flexibility.

The Fair Work Commission found that while the majority of the agreement was fair and reasonable, certain clauses were overly restrictive and did not align with industry standards. The Commission exercised its discretion under section 234 of the Fair Work Act to vary the agreement, removing or modifying the problematic clauses. The decision emphasised the importance of achieving a balance between the protection of employee rights and the need for a functional workplace. The modified agreement was subsequently approved, reflecting a compromise that maintained the essential protections for employees while allowing for reasonable operational requirements.

The final orders included the approval of the modified collective agreement, with specific variations to clauses relating to employee entitlements and working conditions. The Commission's decision highlighted the importance of good faith bargaining and the necessity for agreements to be both fair and reasonable, while also being practical and workable within the industry context.

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