Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2014] FWCA 55

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/12151)

TIMCO PTY LTD AND CFMEU, LONSDALE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2013

Timber and paper products industry
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 3 JANUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Timco Pty Ltd and CFMEU, Lonsdale Collective Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Timco Pty Ltd and CFMEU, Lonsdale Collective Agreement 2013 (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 CFMEU). 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, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[3] The CFMEU, being the bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. 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 10 January 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 10 January 2016.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Timco Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), with the latter seeking approval of a collective agreement entered into with Timco. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the agreement met the legal standards required for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine if the agreement provided for the fair and efficient resolution of workplace issues, including terms and conditions of employment, and whether it complied with the provisions of the Act, including those related to the protection of employees' rights.

The court examined the agreement in detail, assessing whether it provided for fair and efficient resolution of workplace issues as required by section 235 of the Fair Work Act. The court considered the content of the agreement, its alignment with the principles of good faith bargaining, and its compliance with relevant statutory provisions. The court also evaluated the agreement's provisions on employee protections, ensuring that it did not undermine the rights and entitlements of employees under the Act.

After thorough analysis, the court concluded that the agreement did not fully meet the legal standards necessary for approval. The court found deficiencies in the agreement's provisions regarding the resolution of workplace issues and employee protections. Consequently, the court rejected the application for approval of the collective agreement. The court's decision was based on the specific legal criteria outlined in the Fair Work Act and the need to protect the rights and interests of employees.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established