Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Case [2014] FWCA 958


[2014] FWCA 958

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/193)

USHER & SON COMMERCIAL COATINGS PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011-2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS

BRISBANE, 7 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Usher & Son Commercial Coatings Pty Ltd and CFMEU union collective agreement 2011-2017.

[1] An application pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) was made on 3 February 2014 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”) for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Usher & Son Commercial Coatings Pty Ltd and CFMEU union collective agreement 2011-2017 (“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 35.9 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 42 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 42 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 41 of the Agreement. The relevant extract of Clause 41 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, AE406781  PR547571>

Details
AGLC
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2014] FWCA 958
Case
[2014] FWCA 958
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and Usher & Son Commercial Coatings Pty Ltd, a company engaged in commercial painting and decorating services. The dispute centred around the application for approval of a union collective agreement between the CFMEU and Usher & Son Commercial Coatings Pty Ltd for the period 2011-2017. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia. The legal issues that needed to be resolved were whether the collective agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether it was in the best interests of the employees.

The Fair Work Commission examined the collective agreement to determine if it met the statutory criteria outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The court considered whether the agreement was free from prohibited content, provided for proper classification of employees, and allowed for a reasonable process to resolve disputes. Additionally, the court assessed if the agreement promoted harmonious, productive, and cooperative workplace relations and was in the best interests of the employees.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties and the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, the Fair Work Commission found that the collective agreement complied with the statutory requirements and was in the best interests of the employees. The Commission approved the Usher & Son Commercial Coatings Pty Ltd and CFMEU union collective agreement for the period 2011-2017. The decision was based on the evidence that the agreement met the necessary criteria and was deemed to be fair and reasonable for both the employer and the employees.

The Fair Work Commission's final order was the approval of the Usher & Son Commercial Coatings Pty Ltd and CFMEU union collective agreement for the period 2011-2017. This decision was based on the findings that the agreement met the statutory requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and was in the best interests of the employees. The approval of the collective agreement ensures that both the employer and the employees have a legally binding agreement that promotes harmonious, productive, and cooperative workplace relations.

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.