[2013] FWCA 9289 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/10121)
QUEENSLAND FACADE SYSTEMS PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011-2015
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS | BRISBANE, 27 NOVEMBER 2013 |
Application for approval of the Queensland Facade Systems 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 19 November 2013 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”) for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Queensland Facade Systems 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.
- 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] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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, AE405559 PR545003>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2013] FWCA 9289
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 9289
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the FWC was whether specific clauses within the collective agreement were consistent with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The clauses in dispute related to the terms of employment, particularly those concerning the duration of work shifts, penalty rates, and conditions for overtime. The CFMEU argued that these clauses were necessary to ensure fair and reasonable terms of employment, while QFS contended that certain provisions were overly restrictive and detrimental to the business's operational flexibility.
In deliberating on the matter, the FWC examined the purpose and effect of the clauses in question, assessing them against the statutory criteria outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Commission concluded that while some clauses provided necessary protections for employees, others imposed undue constraints on the employer's ability to manage its workforce effectively. Consequently, the FWC determined that certain provisions were not in compliance with the Act and could not be approved. The FWC then made orders to modify the collective agreement to ensure compliance with the statutory requirements.
Following the FWC's decision, the CFMEU and QFS were required to revise their collective agreement to align with the approved terms. The final orders mandated that specific clauses be amended or removed to ensure they met the standards set by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The revised agreement was to be submitted to the FWC for final approval, ensuring that the terms of employment were fair, reasonable, and compliant with the statutory framework.
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.