Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2014] FWCA 7369

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/7580)

TRAZMET PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2014 - 2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN	SYDNEY, 17 OCTOBER 2014

Application for approval of the Trazmet Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2014 - 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Trazmet Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2014 - 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (the Applicant). The agreement is single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act 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 seven days after the issuing of the decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Trazmet Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from an application to approve a collective agreement between the union and the employer for the period 2014 to 2017. The Fair Work Commission was the forum for this decision. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement contained any terms that were not reasonably necessary to facilitate or assist in the carrying out of the employer's business or in the operation of a workplace. The Commission had to determine if the terms of the agreement were in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions and if they were necessary for the efficient operation of the employer’s business.

The Commission considered the nature and scope of the proposed agreement and the specific terms that were challenged. It examined whether the terms were necessary to facilitate the operation of the employer’s business and if they were consistent with the principles of good faith bargaining and fairness. The Commission also looked at whether the terms imposed any undue burden on the employer or the workforce. In its reasoning, the Commission found that certain provisions of the agreement were not necessary for the operation of the employer’s business and did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The Commission decided that these terms were not to be approved as they did not align with the legislative standards.

As a result of its findings, the Commission approved the agreement with modifications to exclude the terms that were not reasonably necessary. These modifications ensured that the agreement complied with the applicable laws and did not impose any unnecessary obligations on the employer. The Commission's final orders included the approval of the collective agreement with the specified modifications, ensuring that the terms were aligned with the legal requirements and the operational needs of the employer's business.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established