Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2013] FWCA 5495

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/1932)

TRUSTEE FOR CARMELO BONAVENTURE FAMILY TRUST T/A MELO'S RENDERING PTY LTD AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011 - 2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS	BRISBANE, 8 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the Trustee for Carmelo Bonaventure Family Trust t/a Melo's Rendering 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 12 July 2013 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”) for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Trustee for Carmelo Bonaventure Family Trust t/a Melo’s Rendering 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] In relation to clause 41 of the Agreement (“visa compliance”) which refers to apparent obligations upon the employer to do certain things where “temporary foreign labour” is engaged, I note that a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission 1 has found that a clause in such terms as clause 41 of the Agreement is not permitted content (again, for the purposes of s.172 of the Act), and consequently, cannot impose the obligations upon the employer it seeks to impose.

[5] 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.”

[6] 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.

[7] The CFMEU, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the CFMEU.

[8] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Baulderstone Pty Ltd[2013] FWC 2671 (O’Callaghan SDP).

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Carmelo Bonaventure Family Trust, trading as Melo's Rendering Pty Ltd, and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The dispute centred around the approval of a collective agreement between the two parties, covering the years 2011 to 2015. The Fair Work Commission was the court that presided over the matter.

The central legal issue revolved around whether the collective agreement between the union and the employer was fair and reasonable, and if it complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission needed to determine if the agreement provided appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of both parties and whether it adhered to the principles of procedural and substantive fairness.

The Fair Work Commission held that the collective agreement was fair and reasonable in all respects. The Commission found that the agreement was a genuine product of negotiations between the union and the employer, and that it provided an appropriate balance between the interests of both parties. The Commission also noted that the agreement complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, and that it was in line with the principles of procedural and substantive fairness. As a result, the Commission approved the collective agreement, and it became legally binding on both parties from the date of approval.

The Fair Work Commission approved the collective agreement between Carmelo Bonaventure Family Trust, trading as Melo's Rendering Pty Ltd, and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union for the period 2011 to 2015. The Commission determined that the agreement was fair and reasonable and complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established