DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2017/5858)

LACK GROUP CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD / CFMEU LABOURERS COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2017-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 12 DECEMBER 2017

Application for approval of the Lack Group Construction Pty Ltd / CFMEU Labourers Collective Agreement 2017-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Lack Group Construction Pty Ltd / CFMEU Labourers Collective Agreement 2017-2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 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. 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 of the Act, will operate from 19 December 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved an application for the approval of the Lack Group Construction Pty Ltd/Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFME) Labourers Collective Agreement 2017-2018. The dispute centred on whether the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether it met the statutory requirements for approval by the Commission. The applicant, Lack Group Construction Pty Ltd, sought to have the agreement ratified, while the CFMEU contested certain provisions, arguing they were unfair or did not meet the necessary standards for a lawful collective agreement.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the collective agreement contained provisions that were unfair within the meaning of section 232 of the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the court had to determine if the agreement contained terms that did not comply with the statutory requirements for collective agreements, such as those outlined in section 230 of the Act. The court examined whether the agreement adhered to the procedural fairness standards and if it was genuinely negotiated between the parties.

The Fair Work Commission found that certain provisions of the agreement were unfair and did not comply with the statutory requirements. The court detailed that these provisions did not meet the standards for procedural fairness and were not genuinely negotiated between the parties. Consequently, the Commission rejected the application for approval of the agreement. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that all terms in a collective agreement are fair and genuinely negotiated, adhering to the legal framework established under the Fair Work Act. The Commission's ruling provided clarity on the standards expected for collective agreements and highlighted the consequences of non-compliance.

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