Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2014] FWCA 991

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/3596)

ALFAMEX PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU RIGGER / STEEL ERECTOR ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 10 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Alfamex Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Rigger / Steel Erector Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Alfamex Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Rigger / Steel Erector 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). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] In my view, the Consultative Mechanisms provision in clause 8 of the Agreement is not a consultation term which meets the requirements of ss.205(1)(ii) and (1A) of the Act, insofar as it does not include the terms concerning consultation about a change to an employee’s regular roster or ordinary hours of work. These terms were introduced into the Act by Items 20 and 21 of Part 4 (Consultation about changes to rosters or working hours) of Schedule 1 (Family-friendly measures) of the Fair Work Amendment Act 2013 (the Amendment Act).Those amendments operate in relation to an enterprise agreement that is made after the commencement of Part 4 of Schedule 1 on 1 January 2014 (Item 5(2) of Part 4 of Schedule 7 (Application and transitional provisions) of the Amendment Act).

[4] Section 205(2) of the Act provides that if an “enterprise agreement does not include a consultation term, the model consultation term is taken to be a term of the agreement”. The model consultation term is found in Schedule 2.3 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009.

[5] As required by s.201(1)(ii) of the Act, I note that the model consultation term is taken, under s.205(2), to be a term of the Agreement.

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

[7] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 17 February 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2015.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application for the approval of the Alfamex Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Rigger / Steel Erector Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015. The Commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The legal issues central to the case revolved around whether the agreement contained provisions that were contrary to the public interest and whether it adequately protected the interests of employees. The Commission had to assess the fairness and appropriateness of the terms and conditions outlined in the agreement, considering factors such as wages, working conditions, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

The Commission began its analysis by examining the provisions of the agreement against the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act. It considered the overall fairness of the terms, the impact on employees, and whether the agreement facilitated productivity and workplace harmony. The Commission noted that while the agreement contained provisions that were beneficial to the employees, such as improved wages and better working conditions, it also identified certain clauses that raised concerns about potential inefficiencies and the possibility of encouraging frivolous claims. Ultimately, the Commission found that the agreement did not significantly undermine the public interest and that it generally protected the interests of employees. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement, subject to certain modifications to address the identified concerns.

In light of the Commission's findings, the final orders included the approval of the agreement with conditions that required specific amendments to be made. These amendments aimed to ensure that the agreement would operate in a manner that balanced the interests of both employers and employees, while also promoting a productive and harmonious workplace environment. The decision underscores the importance of enterprise agreements in maintaining fair and equitable working conditions within the industry.

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