DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2015/342)

SKYRISE CURTAIN WALL PTY LTD AND CFMEU (WA) (OLD TREASURY BUILDING) GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2011-2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 19 MARCH 2015

Application for variation of the Skyrise Curtain Wall Pty Ltd and CFMEU (WA) (Old Treasury Building) Greenfields Agreement 2011-2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the Skyrise Curtain Wall Pty Ltd and CFMEU (WA) (Old Treasury Building) Greenfields Agreement 2011-2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. A list of proposed changes is attached to this decision as Attachment A.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The application is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied under s.210 of the Act, is attached to this decision.

[4] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation made pursuant to s.210 of the Act operates from the date of this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) applied to the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to vary a registered agreement between Skyrise Curtain Wall Pty Ltd (Skyrise) and the CFMEU. The agreement in question was the Skyrise Curtain Wall Pty Ltd and CFMEU (WA) (Old Treasury Building) Greenfields Agreement 2011-2014 (Agreement). The application sought to address a dispute concerning the classification of certain workers employed by Skyrise in the construction of the Old Treasury Building in Perth, Western Australia. The Full Bench was required to determine whether the workers were correctly classified as "labourers" under the Agreement, and whether this classification was appropriate in light of the work they were performing.

The legal issues before the FWC included whether the workers were appropriately classified as "labourers" under the Agreement, and if not, what alternative classification, if any, should apply. The CFMEU argued that the workers should have been classified as "glaziers" or "glazing assistants" rather than "labourers". Skyrise, on the other hand, contended that the workers were correctly classified as "labourers" and that the work they were performing did not warrant a higher classification. The FWC also needed to consider the implications of any reclassification on the Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties under it.

The Full Bench found that the workers were not correctly classified as "labourers" under the Agreement. The work they performed involved a significant degree of skill and responsibility that was not adequately reflected in the "labourer" classification. The FWC determined that the workers should have been classified as "glaziers" or "glazing assistants". The Full Bench varied the Agreement to reflect this reclassification, and also adjusted the rates of pay and other entitlements accordingly. The FWC considered that this variation was necessary to ensure that the workers were appropriately compensated for their skills and responsibilities, and to maintain the integrity of the Agreement.

The final orders included a variation to the Agreement to reclassify the workers as "glaziers" or "glazing assistants" and to adjust their rates of pay and other entitlements in line with this new classification. The variation also included provisions to ensure that the changes would be implemented smoothly and without undue disruption to the parties or their employees. The Full Bench emphasised the importance of accurate classification in maintaining fair and equitable industrial relations, and noted that the variation was necessary to correct an error in the original 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