[2013] FWCA 6275 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/8637)
DRILLER FAMILY TRUST (THE TRUSTEE FOR) T/AS DRILLER BUILDING CONTRACTORS PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON | MELBOURNE, 30 AUGUST 2013 |
Application for approval of the Driller Family Trust (The Trustee for) T/As Driller Building Contractors Pty Ltd 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 Driller Family Trust (The Trustee for) T/As Driller Building Contractors Pty Ltd 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 6 September 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2015.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE403534 PR540914>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2013] FWCA 6275
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 6275
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the agreement clause by clause, assessing whether it met the statutory requirements. It found that while the agreement contained some provisions that were compliant, others were not. Specifically, the court identified issues with the provisions relating to the right to freedom of association, which did not align with the protections afforded by the Act. Additionally, there were concerns about procedural fairness in the way the agreement was negotiated. The court concluded that the agreement, as a whole, did not meet the statutory standards for approval under the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed.
The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreement's provisions and their compatibility with the Fair Work Act. The court found that the agreement failed to adequately protect the right to freedom of association and did not ensure procedural fairness in its negotiation. These deficiencies were sufficient to warrant the refusal of approval. As a result, the agreement was not approved and the application was dismissed. The court's decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements comply with the statutory framework designed to protect the rights of employees and employers.
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.