Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2014] FWCA 2347

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/754)

BRADFORD ALUMINIUM WINDOWS & DOORS PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU FFPD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 8 APRIL 2014

Application for approval of the Bradford Aluminium Windows & Doors Pty Ltd and the CFMEU FFPD Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Bradford Aluminium Windows & Doors Pty Ltd and the CFMEU FFPD 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).

[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 15 April 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2015.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and Bradford Aluminium Windows & Doors Pty Ltd. The matter before the court was an application for the approval of an enterprise agreement between the parties, which was the Bradford Aluminium Windows & Doors Pty Ltd and CFMEU Fair Pay and Conditions (FFP) Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015. The application was brought under the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking the court's endorsement of the agreement as a registered bargaining agreement. The dispute arose from objections to certain provisions within the agreement, which were deemed to be potentially contrary to the public interest or inconsistent with the Fair Work Act.

The court was tasked with determining whether the provisions in question were consistent with the provisions of the Fair Work Act and whether they were in the public interest. The specific legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Act, particularly focusing on the provisions of sections 228 and 231 of the Act. These sections pertain to the approval process for enterprise agreements and the criteria that must be met for an agreement to be deemed appropriate for registration. The court had to examine if the provisions in dispute were fair and reasonable, and whether they complied with the procedural and substantive requirements set out in the Act.

The court reviewed the arguments presented by both parties and conducted an analysis of the provisions in question. It found that while some of the provisions did not align with the principles of the Fair Work Act, they did not substantially contravene the public interest. The court held that the provisions could be approved as they did not significantly affect the broader economic or social interests of the community. Consequently, the court approved the enterprise agreement, subject to the removal or modification of certain provisions that were inconsistent with the Act. The court's decision balanced the interests of the parties with the overarching objectives of the Fair Work Act, ensuring that the agreement could proceed while maintaining the integrity of the legislative framework.

The final orders of the court were that the Bradford Aluminium Windows & Doors Pty Ltd and CFMEU Fair Pay and Conditions (FFP) Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 be approved, with specific conditions attached. Certain provisions were to be modified or removed to align with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court's decision allowed the enterprise agreement to proceed, subject to the modifications, ensuring that it met the statutory requirements for approval.

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