Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2013] FWCA 7296

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/9464)

LR & AE MARKHAM T/AS MARKHAM CARPENTRY AND THE CFMEU BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 23 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the LR & AE Markham T/As Markham Carpentry 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 LR & AE Markham T/As Markham Carpentry 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 30 September 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

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union sought approval for the LR & AE Markham T/As Markham Carpentry and the CFMEU Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 before the Fair Work Commission. The agreement was a collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer, which aimed to regulate the terms and conditions of employment for the employees of Markham Carpentry. The union applied for the approval of the agreement under section 231 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer opposed the application, arguing that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees as it did not promote productivity, flexibility, and efficiency in the workplace.

The legal issues before the court were whether the agreement met the requirements of section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether it was in the best interests of the employees. The court had to consider whether the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, including minimum rates of pay and hours of work, and whether it facilitated productivity, flexibility, and efficiency in the workplace. The court also had to consider whether the agreement was consistent with the objects of the Fair Work Act 2009, which included promoting high levels of employment and income, and facilitating cooperative relationships between employers and employees.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement met the requirements of section 235 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and was in the best interests of the employees. The commission noted that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment, including minimum rates of pay and hours of work, and facilitated productivity, flexibility, and efficiency in the workplace. The commission also found that the agreement was consistent with the objects of the Fair Work Act 2009. The commission approved the agreement, subject to certain modifications to address the employer's concerns about the impact of the agreement on productivity, flexibility, and efficiency in the workplace.

The Fair Work Commission approved the LR & AE Markham T/As Markham Carpentry and the CFMEU Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015, subject to certain modifications. The modifications included changes to the agreement's provisions on shift patterns, overtime, and casual loading. The commission considered that the modifications were necessary to address the employer's concerns about the impact of the agreement on productivity, flexibility, and efficiency in the workplace, while still maintaining fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment for the employees. The union and the employer were required to implement the modifications within a specified timeframe.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established