Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2014] FWCA 421

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/10548)

GOLD COAST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2012 - 2016

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN	SYDNEY, 16 JANUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Gold Coast Construction Services Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2012 - 2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known asthe Gold Coast Construction Services Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2012 - 2016 (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 (the Applicant). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

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

[3] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union NSW Construction and General Branch (the Union) have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they wish to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days after the issuing of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union applied for approval of a collective agreement between Gold Coast Construction Services Pty Ltd and the union. The agreement sought to regulate the employment conditions of workers on the Gold Coast. The key issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the agreement provided for genuine and meaningful consultation and if it was in the best interests of the employees.

The Commission examined the provisions of the agreement to assess if they facilitated genuine consultation. The union argued that the agreement provided a structured process for consultation and had mechanisms for resolving disputes. However, the company contended that certain provisions were vague and did not ensure meaningful consultation. After reviewing the evidence, the Commission found that while the agreement contained provisions for consultation, some elements were not sufficiently detailed to ensure genuine and meaningful engagement. The Commission concluded that the agreement did not fully meet the statutory requirements for approval.

Consequently, the application for approval of the collective agreement was rejected. The Commission found that the agreement did not sufficiently ensure genuine consultation and therefore did not align with the legislative framework for collective agreements. The Commission ordered that the agreement be returned to the parties for further negotiation to address the deficiencies identified.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established