Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2014] FWCA 3109

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/5940)

MARTOS, CAMILO JOSE T/AS ROADMASTER LINE MARKING AND THE CFMEU BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 13 MAY 2014

Application for approval of the Martos, Camilo Jose T/As Roadmaster Line Marking and the CFMEU Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Martos, Camilo Jose T/As Roadmaster Line Marking and the CFMEU Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 (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 (CFMEU). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The CFMEU 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, will operate from 20 May 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2015.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the Fair Work Commission was called upon to assess an application for the approval of a specific enterprise agreement. The parties involved in this case were the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and Martos, Camilo Jose T/As Roadmaster Line Marking. The dispute centred on whether the CFMEU Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 should be formally approved, given its implications for the employees of the respondent company.

The legal issues before the Commission revolved around the necessity for an enterprise agreement to meet certain statutory criteria, including compliance with procedural requirements and substantive provisions. The Commission had to determine whether the agreement was made in good faith, if it provided for the proper classification of employees, and if it contained terms and conditions that were fair and reasonable. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement was appropriately negotiated and if the necessary consultation processes were followed.

The Commission meticulously examined the evidence presented by both parties, evaluating the procedural integrity of the agreement and the fairness of its terms. It found that the agreement was negotiated in good faith and that the requisite consultation processes were adhered to. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the agreement contained terms and conditions that were fair and reasonable, considering the specific circumstances of the industry and the bargaining positions of the parties. Consequently, the Commission approved the CFMEU Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015, recognising its validity and enforceability.

In light of the findings, the Commission ordered the approval of the enterprise agreement. This decision ensures that the terms and conditions outlined in the agreement will govern the employment relationship between the CFMEU and Martos, Camilo Jose T/As Roadmaster Line Marking for the duration specified. This approval signifies the Commission's endorsement of the agreement as a fair and effective means of regulating the industrial relations between the parties involved.

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