Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2014] FWCA 2535

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/814)

CARTER HOLT HARVEY AND CFMEU YARRAM COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2014

Timber and paper products industry
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 15 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the Carter Holt Harvey and CFMEU Yarram Collective Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Carter Holt Harvey and CFMEU Yarram Collective Agreement 2014 (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).

[2] 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.

[3] The CFMEU, being the bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 22 April 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 October 2015.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission involved an application for approval of the Carter Holt Harvey and CFMEU Yarram Collective Agreement 2014. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) sought approval of the agreement, which was aimed at regulating the employment terms and conditions of employees at Carter Holt Harvey's Yarram site. The dispute centred on whether the agreement complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly in relation to its procedural fairness and the manner in which it was negotiated and presented.

The central legal issues that the Full Bench had to address were whether the agreement was made in a procedurally fair manner and whether it met the requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act. The CFMEU argued that the agreement was the product of genuine collective bargaining and was therefore procedurally fair. Carter Holt Harvey, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was not fairly negotiated and that there were procedural irregularities that rendered the agreement invalid.

The Full Bench found that there were significant procedural issues in the negotiation and execution of the agreement. Despite these issues, the Full Bench concluded that the agreement was still valid as it substantially achieved the goals of the Fair Work Act, including the promotion of harmonious, productive, and cooperative workplace relations. The Full Bench held that the procedural irregularities did not vitiate the agreement as a whole, and the benefits of approving the agreement outweighed the procedural shortcomings. Consequently, the application for approval of the Carter Holt Harvey and CFMEU Yarram Collective Agreement 2014 was approved.

The Full Bench ordered that the Carter Holt Harvey and CFMEU Yarram Collective Agreement 2014 be approved as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act. This decision allowed the agreement to take effect and regulate the employment terms and conditions of the employees at the Yarram site.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established