Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2013] FWCA 9620

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/11789)

STUDD CORP PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 9 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Studd Corp Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Studd Corp Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Building and Construction Industry 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] 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.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 16 December 2013. 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

In the matter of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEUA), the applicant, and Studd Corporation Pty Ltd (Studd), the respondent, the Federal Court was tasked with approving the 2011-2015 Enterprise Agreement. The agreement, a product of negotiations between the CFMEU and Studd, was submitted for the court's endorsement. The CFMEU argued that the agreement was necessary to address various workplace issues, including pay rates, working conditions, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Studd, on the other hand, raised concerns about the enforceability of certain clauses, particularly those related to union activities and member participation.

The court was required to examine whether the agreement met the criteria for endorsement as per the Fair Work Act 2009. This involved ensuring that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, that it was free from coercion and undue influence, and that it complied with the provisions of the Act. The court also needed to assess whether the agreement contained mandatory terms that were consistent with the National Employment Standards and if it provided adequate protection for employees' rights.

The court found that the agreement largely met the statutory requirements for endorsement. It concluded that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, as it addressed several workplace issues and provided for fair terms and conditions of employment. The court also determined that the agreement was free from coercion and undue influence and that it complied with the Act. However, the court did strike down certain provisions that it found to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards, particularly those that allowed for reduced pay during union activities. The court ultimately endorsed the agreement with some modifications, ensuring that it aligned with the statutory framework and protected employees' rights.

The court's final order was to approve the 2011-2015 Enterprise Agreement between the CFMEU and Studd, subject to the modifications made to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The court's decision provided clarity on the enforceability of the agreement and established a framework for future negotiations between the parties. The endorsement of the agreement signified the court's recognition of the importance of collective bargaining in the construction industry and its commitment to ensuring fair and equitable terms for employees.

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