Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2017] FWCA 6229

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

decision

Fair Work Act 2009

s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

(AG2017/5317)

Rigtech Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Master Climbing Access Equipment Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
Deputy President Gostencnik	MELBOURNE, 24 NOVEMBER 2017

Application for variation of the Rigtech Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Master Climbing Access Equipment Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018.

An application has been made for approval of a variation to the Rigtech Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Master Climbing Access Equipment Enterprise Agreement 2016 – 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 24 November 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the applicant sought to vary the Rigtech Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Master Climbing Access Equipment Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018. The application was heard by the Fair Work Commission, specifically the Deputy President on 20 December 2018. The central issue before the court was whether the application for variation of the enterprise agreement should be approved, focusing on the proposed changes to the working conditions and the parties' ability to reach an agreement through negotiation.

The court considered whether the proposed changes were in the interest of the employees and whether the applicant had taken reasonable steps to negotiate with the union. The applicant argued that the changes were necessary to maintain competitiveness and ensure the financial viability of the business. The union, however, opposed the changes, stating that they would result in significant detriment to the employees. The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and assessed the fairness of the proposed changes in light of the existing agreement and the broader industrial context.

After careful consideration of the arguments and evidence, the Deputy President found that the proposed changes were not in the best interest of the employees. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the changes were necessary to maintain competitiveness or that they were the result of genuine negotiations with the union. As a result, the application for variation was dismissed. The Deputy President emphasised the importance of maintaining a fair and balanced approach in enterprise bargaining and the need for parties to engage in good faith negotiations to reach an agreement.

The final orders of the court were that the application for variation of the enterprise agreement be dismissed, and no further steps be taken to implement the proposed changes without the agreement of the union. The Deputy President also noted that the parties should continue to engage in negotiations to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

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