Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Case [2014] FWCA 1197


[2014] FWCA 1197

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a greenfields agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/246)

CRANSPORT PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011 - 2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS

BRISBANE, 18 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Cransport 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 7 February 2014 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”)

for the approval of a greenfields agreement known as the Cransport 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] A statutory declaration was provided by Mr P. Close, Assistant Divisional Branch Secretary, of the CFMEU.

[7] In light of this statutory declaration and in accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that the CFMEU is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it and that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

[8] 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.

[9] The consultation clause in the Agreement 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 and is attached to the Agreement.

[10] 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, AE406920  PR547891>

Details
AGLC
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2014] FWCA 1197
Case
[2014] FWCA 1197
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) applied for approval of a collective agreement with Cransport Pty Ltd, covering the period from 2011 to 2015. The dispute centred around the fairness and compliance of the proposed agreement with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with ensuring the agreement met the criteria for being deemed as fairly and properly negotiated, as well as being in the best interests of the employees and employers involved.

The primary legal issues that the Commission had to address included whether the agreement was negotiated fairly, whether it complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, and whether it was in the best interests of the employees and employers. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement contained provisions that were contrary to the public interest, such as those that could potentially lead to anti-competitive practices or undermine the public interest.

The Commission examined the negotiation process, the content of the agreement, and its potential impact on the parties involved. It found that the agreement was fairly negotiated and did not contain any provisions that were contrary to the public interest. The Commission also concluded that the agreement was in the best interests of both the employees and employers, as it provided for fair and reasonable terms of employment. The Commission approved the agreement, subject to certain conditions and modifications to address specific concerns.

The final orders included the approval of the collective agreement with specific conditions that required the parties to address certain issues identified during the review process. These conditions aimed to ensure the agreement continued to meet the standards set by the Fair Work Act and served the best interests of all parties involved.

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.