Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2014] FWCA 3445

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/9892)

C.A.S.C CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD AND CFMEU (WA) AND EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 26 MAY 2014

Application for variation of the C.A.S.C Construction Pty Ltd and CFMEU (WA) and Employees Enterprise Agreement 2011-2014.

[1] An application has been made Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (the Applicant) for variation of the C.A.S.C Construction Pty Ltd and CFMEU (WA) and Employees Enterprise Agreement 2011-2014 (the Agreement) as follows.

A. By inserting the words “and the May Holman Development, 32 St Georges Tce Perth Western Australia” after the words “except on the Brookfield Place Tower Two Project” in Clause 3.1 of the Agreement.

[2] The variation is approved and will come into force on 26 May 2014.

[3] A consolidated copy of the Agreement is attached to this decision. Reasons for this approval decision will be provided at a later date.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, C.A.S.C Construction Pty Ltd, sought a variation to the existing enterprise agreement between themselves and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (WA) and Employees, covering the period from 2011 to 2014. The application was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining whether the requested variation should be approved.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the applicant had demonstrated that the proposed variation was necessary to achieve a significant economic benefit, as required by section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and assess whether the variation would indeed result in such a benefit and if it was in line with the principles of good faith bargaining and procedural fairness.

After carefully reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Commission concluded that the applicant had not successfully demonstrated that the proposed variation was necessary to achieve a significant economic benefit. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed. The Commission found that the applicant's evidence did not adequately support the claim that the variation was essential for the company's economic viability and that the existing agreement was sufficient to meet the needs of both parties.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the existing enterprise agreement between C.A.S.C Construction Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (WA) and Employees remained in effect for the remainder of the 2011-2014 period. The applicant was not granted the variation it sought, and the terms and conditions of employment continued to be governed by the original agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established