[2013] FWCA 8153 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/10857)
M & B RIGGING (QLD) PTY LTD ATF M&B RIGGING AUSTRALIA TRUST T/A M & B RIGGING AUSTRALIA AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011 - 2015
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS | BRISBANE, 17 OCTOBER 2013 |
Application for approval of the M & B Rigging (QLD) Pty Ltd ATF M&B Rigging Australia Trust T/A M & B Rigging Australia 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 11 October 2013 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”) for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the M & B Rigging (QLD) Pty Ltd ATF M&B Rigging Australia Trust T/A M & B Rigging Australia 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 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, AE404833 PR543445>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2013] FWCA 8153
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 8153
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission revolved around whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act and whether it met the standards of procedural fairness. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable outcome for the employees and if the process through which the agreement was reached was fair and equitable. The Commission also had to consider whether the agreement provided for the fair and reasonable resolution of the employees' terms and conditions of employment.
The Commission found that the agreement was compliant with the Fair Work Act and met the standards of procedural fairness. It was concluded that the agreement provided for a fair and reasonable outcome for the employees, as it addressed their terms and conditions of employment in a balanced and fair manner. The Commission also found that the process through which the agreement was reached was fair and equitable, as it involved genuine bargaining between the parties and provided an opportunity for the employees to be heard. As a result, the Commission approved the collective agreement.
The final order of the Commission was that the application for approval of the M & B Rigging (QLD) Pty Ltd ATF M&B Rigging Australia Trust T/A M & B Rigging Australia and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2011 - 2015 be approved. This decision ensures that the terms and conditions of employment set out in the agreement are legally binding on both parties and that the employees will benefit from the fair and reasonable outcomes provided for in the agreement.
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.