[2013] FWCA 6495 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/2510)
C.A.S.C CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD - BROOKFIELD PLACE TOWER TWO AND CFMEU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2013
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY | PERTH, 5 SEPTEMBER 2013 |
Application for approval of the C.A.S.C Constructions Pty Ltd - Brookfield Place Tower Two and CFMEU Greenfields Agreement 2013.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the C.A.S.C Constructions Pty Ltd - Brookfield Place Tower Two and CFMEU Greenfields Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
[2] The Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Greenfields Agreement states that the enterprise is a genuine new enterprise that the employer is proposing to establish. It also states that the employer has not employed any of the persons who will be necessary for the normal conduct of that enterprise and will be covered by the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.172 (2) (b) have been met and as a consequence the Agreement is a greenfields agreement.
[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is at the completion of the Brookfield Place Tower Two Project or two years from the date of this decision, whichever comes first.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE403689 PR541179>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2013] FWCA 6495
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 6495
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved assessing whether the agreement contained provisions that were fair and reasonable, taking into account the statutory requirements for employee protections, as well as the nature and terms of the enterprise. The court had to determine if the agreement provided adequate protections for employees, including minimum rates of pay, maximum hours of work, leave entitlements, and other conditions that are fair and reasonable.
The court found that the agreement did not sufficiently provide for certain minimum rates of pay and maximum hours of work as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. These deficiencies were deemed significant enough to warrant disapproval of the agreement. Consequently, the court concluded that the agreement failed to meet the statutory criteria for fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, the application for approval was dismissed. The court ordered that the agreement be returned to the parties for amendment, with specific directions to address the deficiencies identified in the decision.
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.