Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Case [2014] FWCA 725


[2014] FWCA 725

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/115)

GINKGO BILOBA PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS

BRISBANE, 30 JANUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Ginkgo Biloba 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 23 January 2014 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”) for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Ginkgo Biloba 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] 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, AE406619  PR547276>

Details
AGLC
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2014] FWCA 725
Case
[2014] FWCA 725
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) applied for approval of a collective agreement with Ginkgo Biloba Pty Ltd for the period 2011-2015. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) was the court in this matter. The primary dispute centred around the validity and enforceability of certain clauses within the collective agreement, specifically those relating to the terms of employment, including wages, conditions, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the agreement complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the provisions were fair and reasonable. The FWC had to determine if the agreement met the criteria for approval, particularly focusing on whether it provided for a fair and efficient process for resolving disputes and whether the terms and conditions were fair and reasonable.

In its reasoning, the FWC examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act and the principles of fairness and reasonableness. The FWC concluded that certain clauses in the agreement did not meet the statutory requirements and were not fair and reasonable. Consequently, the FWC rejected the application for approval of the agreement, citing the non-compliant and unfair nature of some of the clauses. The court ordered that the agreement could not be approved in its current form, directing the parties to negotiate and submit a revised agreement that complied with the legal standards.

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.