Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2017] FWCA 6227

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

decision

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

(AG2017/5460)

Australian Post-Tensioning Pty. Ltd. / CFMEU Agreement 2017-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
Commissioner Gregory	MELBOURNE, 24 NOVEMBER 2017

Application for approval of the Australian Post-Tensioning Pty. Ltd. / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2017-2018.

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Australian Post-Tensioning Pty. Ltd. / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2017-2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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.

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.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 1 December 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application by Australian Post-Tensioning Pty Ltd for the approval of a collective agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is tasked with regulating and approving such agreements to ensure they are fair and reasonable. The dispute centred around the terms and conditions of employment as outlined in the proposed agreement, with the union and the employer seeking to resolve their differences and reach a mutually acceptable arrangement.

The legal issues that the Commission had to address included whether the agreement was procedurally sound, whether it contained terms that were fair and reasonable, and whether it complied with relevant industrial legislation. The Commission also had to consider the broader implications of the agreement on the parties involved and the industry as a whole. The fairness of the agreement was particularly scrutinised, with a focus on whether the terms and conditions reflected a fair balance of interests between the employer and the employees.

The Fair Work Commission, after carefully examining the terms of the agreement and the submissions from both parties, concluded that the agreement was procedurally valid and contained terms that were fair and reasonable. The Commission found that the agreement adequately reflected the bargaining positions of the parties and did not disadvantage either party disproportionately. The Commission also noted the importance of the agreement in maintaining industrial harmony and stability within the industry. As a result, the Commission approved the agreement, ensuring that it would be binding on all parties involved.

The Commission's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and submissions provided by the union and the employer. By approving the agreement, the Commission facilitated a resolution to the dispute, allowing the parties to move forward with their employment relationship under the terms set out in the agreement. This outcome reflects the Commission's role in promoting fair and reasonable industrial practices in Australia.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established