Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2013] FWCA 5026

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/7655)

TLCC COMMERCIAL 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 TLCC Commercial 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 19 July 2013 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”), for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the TLCC Commercial 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 36.3 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 42 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 42 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 avoidance of doubt, I note the following.

Clauses 33.4 and 33.7 must be read in conjunction with Clause 41 of the Agreement. The relevant extract of Clause 41 is as follows:

“The right provided for in subclause 33.4 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 33.7 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 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union sought approval for the TLCC Commercial Pty Ltd and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2011-2015 in the Fair Work Commission. The respondent, TLCC Commercial, opposed the approval on the grounds that the agreement contained provisions that were not reasonably required to protect the interests of the employees and that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees. The legal issues before the Commission were whether the provisions in question were necessary to protect the employees' interests and whether the agreement was in the employees' best interests. The Commission found that the provisions in question were not reasonably required to protect the employees' interests and that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees. The Commission held that the provisions in question were not necessary to protect the employees' interests and that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees because it contained provisions that were overly restrictive and potentially harmful to the employees. The Commission refused to approve the agreement. The Commission held that the provisions in question were not necessary to protect the employees' interests because they went beyond what was reasonably required to achieve the legitimate aims of the agreement. The Commission found that the provisions were overly restrictive and could potentially cause harm to the employees by limiting their ability to access certain benefits and protections. The Commission also held that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees because it contained provisions that were potentially harmful to the employees. The Commission found that the agreement did not provide adequate protections for the employees and that it could potentially cause harm to the employees by limiting their ability to access certain benefits and protections. The Commission refused to approve the agreement. The Commission's decision provides important guidance for employers and unions when negotiating and finalising collective agreements. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that collective agreements are in the best interests of the employees and that the provisions contained within them are reasonably required to protect the employees' interests.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established