DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2017/5751)

SRG SERVICES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD T/AS SRG SERVICES (AUSTRALIA) AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIA) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016 - 2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	SYDNEY, 19 DECEMBER 2017

Application for variation of the SRG Services (Australia) Pty Ltd T/as SRG Services (Australia) and the CFMEU (Victoria) Enterprise Agreement 2016 - 2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the SRG Services (Australia) Pty Ltd T/as SRG Services (Australia) and the CFMEU (Victoria) Enterprise Agreement 2016 - 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

[4] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[5] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 19 December 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Fair Work Commission was brought by SRG Services (Australia) Pty Ltd T/as SRG Services (Australia) against the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The central dispute related to the terms of the Enterprise Agreement 2016 - 2018, specifically seeking a variation to the existing agreement to better align with the company’s operational needs and economic conditions.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the proposed variation to the Enterprise Agreement was justified under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant argued that the existing agreement was no longer sustainable due to significant changes in the economic environment and the company's operational requirements. The CFMEU, on the other hand, opposed the variation, contending that it would negatively impact the employees' terms and conditions without any substantial benefit to the company.

In delivering its decision, the Fair Work Commission considered the economic context and the necessity for the proposed changes. The Commission recognised the changes in the economic environment but also took into account the need for fairness and equity in the workplace. After carefully weighing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Commission concluded that the proposed variation did not meet the threshold for being in the best interests of the employees. The Commission determined that the changes sought by the applicant would lead to a deterioration of the employees' conditions without a corresponding benefit to the company's operational efficiency.

The final orders of the Commission were that the application for variation of the Enterprise Agreement was dismissed. The existing agreement remained in effect, and the terms and conditions as stipulated in the 2016 - 2018 agreement continued to apply.

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