Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2014] FWCA 1545

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/419)

WATERPROOF PRODUCTS WA - BROOKFIELD PLACE TOWER TWO AND CFMEU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 24 JULY 2014

Application for approval of the Waterproof Products WA - Brookfield Place Tower Two and CFMEU Greenfields Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Waterproof Products WA - Brookfield Place Tower Two and CFMEU Greenfields Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Greenfields Agreement states that the enterprise is a genuine new enterprise that the employer is proposing to establish. It also states that the employer has not employed any of the persons who will be necessary for the normal conduct of that enterprise and will be covered by the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.172(2)(b) have been met and as a consequence the Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is at the completion of the Project or two years from the date of this decision, whichever comes first.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of an enterprise agreement, which had been made between the applicant union and an employer. The union argued that the agreement was suitable for approval, given that it contained appropriate terms and conditions for employees. The employer opposed the application, claiming that the agreement was deficient in several respects, including that it failed to provide for adequate consultation and communication between the employer and employees. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issue was whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The union contended that the agreement was suitable for approval, given that it provided for appropriate terms and conditions for employees. The employer argued that the agreement was deficient, as it failed to provide for adequate consultation and communication between the employer and employees. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the Act and determine whether the agreement complied with them.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement contained terms and conditions that were suitable for approval. The court noted that the agreement provided for appropriate consultation and communication between the employer and employees, and that it contained provisions that were consistent with the objectives of the Act. The court held that the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Act and dismissed the employer's application.

The Fair Work Commission approved the agreement and made it a registered agreement. The court held that the agreement was suitable for approval and dismissed the employer's application. The court found that the agreement contained appropriate terms and conditions for employees, and that it complied with the relevant provisions of the Act. The agreement was approved and registered as a binding enterprise agreement.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established