[2014] FWCA 2528 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/784)
CARMAR RIGGING PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011-2015
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS | BRISBANE, 15 APRIL 2014 |
Application for approval of the Carmar Rigging Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2011-2015.
[1] An application pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) was made on 4 April 2014 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”) for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Carmar Rigging Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2011-2015(“the Agreement”).
[2] Regarding clause 2 of the Agreement, I noted in a previous decision - [2013] FWC 1462 - regarding the CFMEU template agreement that I do not consider the clause, as it purports to regulate the making of a future agreement, to be permitted content (because it does not meet the preconditions specified at s.172 of the Act).
[3] Additionally, sub clause 35.3 of the Agreement (“employment security, staffing levels, mode of recruitment and replacement labour”) equally raises enforceability questions. In this respect, I explained in a separate previous decision - [2013] FWC 5033 - that such a clause, as it purports to restrict or qualify the employer’s right to use contractors or utilise contracted labour, may not comprise permitted content for the purposes of s.172 of the Act.
[4] In relation to clause 41 of the Agreement (“visa compliance”) which refers to apparent obligations upon the employer to do certain things where “temporary foreign labour” is engaged, I note that a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission 1 has found that a clause in such terms as clause 41 of the Agreement is not permitted content (again, for the purposes of s.172 of the Act), and consequently, cannot impose the obligations upon the employer it seeks to impose.
[5] For the further avoidance of doubt, I note the following.
- Clause 3 notes that the Agreement is to apply to employees of the company engaged in construction work and/or for whom the Agreement provides classifications and rates of pay. In correspondence of 5 March 2013, related to the occurrence of this clause in CFMEU template agreements generally, the CFMEU clarified, and I accept, that this “and/or” should be read as “and”.
- Clauses 32.4 and 32.7 must be read in conjunction with Clause 40 of the Agreement. The relevant extract of Clause 40 is as follows:
“The right provided for in subclause 32.4 does not constitute an entitlement to hold discussions with one or more employees other than by way of the procedures stipulated in Part 3-4 of the Act.
The company will comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) in respect of any requests made under the subclause 32.7 to which that Act applies. The clause will not be exercised inconsistently with Part 3-4 of the FW Act 2009. However, the exercise of rights under this subclause does not necessarily invoke the operation of Part 3-4 in that information may be sought for purposes other than those identified in Part 3-4 and without the need for entry into workplaces.”
[6] The consultation clause does not conform with s.205 of the Act. Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Regulations is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
[7] 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.
[8] The CFMEU, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the CFMEU.
[9] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
1 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Baulderstone Pty Ltd[2013] FWC 2671 (O’Callaghan SDP).
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE407723 PR549714>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2014] FWCA 2528
- Case
- [2014] FWCA 2528
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the collective agreement complied with the provisions of the Act, particularly those concerning the process by which it was negotiated and the fairness of its terms. The Commission had to consider if the agreement was made in good faith, whether it provided for proper mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, and if it contained terms that were fair and reasonable. The Commission also needed to ensure that the agreement did not undermine the operation of any safety or health laws.
In evaluating the agreement, the Commission examined the negotiation process, which included the involvement of both parties and their representatives. The Commission found that the agreement was negotiated in good faith and that the parties had followed the necessary procedures. It was also determined that the agreement contained appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. The terms of the agreement were reviewed for fairness and reasonableness, taking into account the industry context and the rights and obligations of both employers and employees. The Commission concluded that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and it met all statutory requirements for approval.
The Fair Work Commission approved the Carmar Rigging Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2011-2015, finding it to be in compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The agreement was deemed to be made in good faith, to include adequate dispute resolution mechanisms, and to contain terms that were fair and reasonable. The Commission's decision affirmed the validity of the collective agreement, allowing it to be implemented as the governing document for employment conditions between Carmar Rigging Pty Ltd and its employees represented by the CFMEU.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.