[2013] FWCA 7120 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a greenfields agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/2787)
ELEPHANTS FOOT WASTE COMPACTORS PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011-2015
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS | BRISBANE, 18 SEPTEMBER 2013 |
Application for approval of the Elephants Foot Waste Compactors 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 10 September 2013 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”) for the approval of a Greenfields agreement known as the Elephants Foot Waste Compactors 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] 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.”
[5] A statutory declaration was provided by Mr P. Close, Assistant Divisional Branch Secretary, of the CFMEU.
[6] In light of this statutory declaration and in accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that the CFMEU is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it and that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.
[7] 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.
[8] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code G, AE404137 PR541968>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2013] FWCA 7120
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 7120
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the collective agreement complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the agreement met the requirements for protected action immunity, which is necessary for an enterprise agreement to provide immunity from legal action for protected industrial action. Additionally, the Commission assessed whether the agreement contained all the prescribed minimum terms and conditions as required by the Fair Work Act.
The Fair Work Commission found that the collective agreement did not comply with the prescribed minimum terms and conditions for an enterprise agreement. The Commission identified several deficiencies in the agreement, including the absence of provisions regarding termination and redundancy, and the lack of a clause addressing the variation of the agreement. Consequently, the Commission refused to approve the agreement, as it did not meet the statutory requirements for registration. As a result, the agreement could not provide the parties with protected action immunity, and the employees were not afforded the protections outlined in the agreement.
In its decision, the Fair Work Commission did not grant approval for the Elephants Foot Waste Compactors Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2011-2015. The Commission emphasised that the agreement must contain all prescribed minimum terms and conditions to be registered and to provide the parties with protected action immunity. As the agreement did not meet these requirements, the Commission refused to approve the agreement, leaving the employees without the protections outlined within 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.