Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Case [2013] FWCA 9291


[2013] FWCA 9291

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/10166)

P & K DEMOLITION 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 P & K Demolition 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 21 November 2013 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”) for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the P & K Demolition 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 36.3 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 42 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 42 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 41 of the Agreement. The relevant extract of Clause 41 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, AE405561  PR545005>

Details
AGLC
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2013] FWCA 9291
Case
[2013] FWCA 9291
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and P & K Demolition Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the application for the approval of a collective agreement between the two parties for the period 2011 to 2015. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the agreement met the necessary legal standards for approval under relevant industrial laws.

The primary legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the collective agreement was fair and reasonable in all its terms. The court needed to examine if the agreement was made in good faith, if it was free from any coercion, and if it complied with all the relevant statutory requirements. The court also needed to consider whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms of employment, including wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment.

The court, after reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, found that the collective agreement was fair and reasonable. The agreement was made in good faith, without any coercion, and complied with all statutory requirements. The court was satisfied that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms of employment that were consistent with the principles of equity and good conscience. Based on these findings, the court approved the collective agreement between the CFMEU and P & K Demolition Pty Ltd for the period 2011 to 2015.

As a result of the court's decision, the collective agreement was approved, and the parties were bound by its terms. The court's approval provided legal certainty to both the union and the employer, ensuring that the agreement would be enforceable in accordance with the relevant industrial laws.

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.