DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/9242)

MULTI CRETE (AUST) PTY LTD AND THE CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT (ACT) 2013-2016

Australian Capital Territory
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC	CANBERRA, 24 OCTOBER 2014

Application for variation of the Multi Crete (Aust) Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Collective Agreement (ACT) 2013-2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the agreement known as the Multi Crete (Aust) Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Collective Agreement (ACT) 2013-2016 [AE407019] (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.

[2] The variation can be found at Attachment A to this decision.

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

[4] A consolidated version of the Agreement as varied is also attached.

[5] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) for a variation of the Multi Crete (Aust) Pty Ltd and CFMEU Collective Agreement (ACT) 2013-2016. The dispute arose in the Fair Work Commission, where the CFMEU sought to amend the existing agreement to better reflect changes in industry practices and working conditions. The primary issue before the court was whether the proposed changes were justified and necessary to maintain fair and equitable employment terms.

The legal issues centred on the interpretation of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the principles governing variations to registered agreements. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the proposed amendments met the statutory requirements for variation and whether they represented a fair and reasonable adjustment to the existing agreement. This involved assessing the evidence provided by both parties, including submissions on industry standards, economic conditions, and the impact of the proposed changes on both employees and employers.

The Fair Work Commission, after considering the submissions and evidence, concluded that the proposed changes were necessary to address changes in industry practices and working conditions. The court found that the amendments were reasonable and would result in a fair and equitable agreement for both parties. It was determined that the changes were in line with broader industry standards and would not unduly burden employers. As a result, the court approved the variation of the collective agreement as sought by the CFMEU.

The final orders included the approval of the varied agreement, which incorporated the changes proposed by the CFMEU. The court's decision provided clarity on the process for varying collective agreements and reinforced the importance of maintaining fair and reasonable terms in employment agreements. The outcome was seen as a balanced approach that recognised the need for flexibility in employment terms while ensuring that both parties' interests were protected.

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