| [2014] FWCA 5044 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a greenfields agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/1793)
NEAL LINDSAY GARTON AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011 - 2015
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS | BRISBANE, 28 JULY 2014 |
Application for approval of the Neal Lindsay Garton and CFMEU union collective agreement 2011 - 2015.
[1] An application pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) was made on 15 July 2014 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”) for the approval of a Greenfields agreement known as the Neal Lindsay Garton and CFMEU union collective agreement 2011 - 2015 (“the Agreement”).
[2] Regarding clause 2 of the Agreement, I noted in a previous decision - [2013] FWC 1462 - regarding the CFMEU template agreement that I do not consider the clause, as it purports to regulate the making of a future agreement, to be permitted content (because it does not meet the preconditions specified at s.172 of the Act).
[3] Additionally, sub clause 35.3 of the Agreement (“employment security, staffing levels, mode of recruitment and replacement labour”) equally raises enforceability questions. In this respect, I explained in a separate previous decision - [2013] FWC 5033 - that such a clause, as it purports to restrict or qualify the employer’s right to use contractors or utilise contracted labour, may not comprise permitted content for the purposes of s.172 of the Act.
[4] In relation to clause 41 of the Agreement (“visa compliance”) which refers to apparent obligations upon the employer to do certain things where “temporary foreign labour” is engaged, I note that a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission 1 has found that a clause in such terms as clause 41 of the Agreement is not permitted content (again, for the purposes of s.172 of the Act), and consequently, cannot impose the obligations upon the employer it seeks to impose.
[5] For the further avoidance of doubt, I note the following.
- Clauses 32.4 and 32.7 must be read in conjunction with Clause 40 of the Agreement. The relevant extract of Clause 40 is as follows:
“The right provided for in subclause 32.4 does not constitute an entitlement to hold discussions with one or more employees other than by way of the procedures stipulated in Part 3-4 of the Act.
The company will comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of any requests made under the subclause 32.7 to which that Act applies. The clause will not be exercised inconsistently with Part 3-4 of the FW Act 2009. However, the exercise of rights under this subclause does not necessarily invoke the operation of Part 3-4 in that information may be sought for purposes other than those identified in Part 3-4 and without the need for entry into workplaces.”
[6] A statutory declaration was provided by Mr K. Pearson, Divisional Branch Assistant Secretary, of the CFMEU.
[7] In light of this statutory declaration and in accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that the CFMEU is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it and that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.
[8] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[9] The consultation clause does not conform with s.205 of the Act. Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Regulations is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
[10] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
1 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Baulderstone Pty Ltd[2013] FWC 2671 (O’Callaghan SDP).
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE409286 PR553577>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2014] FWCA 5044
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 5044
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the content of the collective agreement to ensure it met the legislative standards. It focused on whether the agreement provided for the minimum entitlements as outlined in the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. Additionally, the Commission assessed whether the agreement adhered to the procedural requirements for approval, including proper consultation and the involvement of relevant stakeholders. The court considered the implications of any deviations from the prescribed standards and the potential impact on the parties involved.
After reviewing the agreement, the Commission determined that it largely complied with the statutory requirements. While there were some minor discrepancies, they did not significantly affect the overall compliance of the agreement. The Commission approved the collective agreement, acknowledging the efforts made by both parties to adhere to the legislative framework. The approval was granted with the understanding that any future amendments would need to continue to meet the statutory standards.
The Fair Work Commission approved the collective agreement between the CFMEU and Neal Lindsay Garton for the period 2011 to 2015, subject to any necessary minor adjustments to fully align with the statutory requirements. The approval was contingent on the parties ensuring ongoing compliance with the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.