DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2017/4674)

MGR INDUSTRIES PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) DEMOLITION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 24 OCTOBER 2017

Application for variation of the MGR Industries Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Demolition Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the MGR Industries Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Demolition Enterprise Agreement 2016 – 2018 (the Agreement). The application was made by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met.

[4] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[5] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 24 October 2017.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union sought to vary the Demolition Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018 it had entered into with MGR Industries Pty Ltd. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal tasked with determining the application. The primary dispute centred on the proposed changes to the agreement, specifically those relating to pay rates and conditions for demolition workers.

The Commission had to decide whether the changes proposed by the Union were in line with the principles of enterprise bargaining as outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The key issues included whether the changes were procedurally fair, whether they met the criteria for a good faith bargain, and whether they were necessary to address economic or workplace changes.

After considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the proposed changes were not in the best interests of the employees and did not constitute a good faith bargain. The changes were deemed to be procedurally unfair as the Union had not adequately consulted with the employees and had not provided sufficient justification for the changes. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the proposed changes did not reflect the economic or workplace changes that necessitated a variation to the agreement. Consequently, the application for variation was dismissed. No further orders were made.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established