[2013] FWCA 5512 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/2002)
QUEENSLAND FACADE INSTALLATIONS 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 Queensland Facade Installations 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 17 July 2013 by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“the CFMEU”) for the approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the Queensland Facade Installations 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
<Price code G, AE402955 PR539977>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2013] FWCA 5512
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 5512
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the collective agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees. The court had to determine if the agreement contained all the mandatory terms prescribed by the Act and if it met the standards set for good-faith bargaining and fairness. Additionally, the court had to consider if the agreement was made in good faith and if it was likely to lead to improved working conditions.
The court examined the collective agreement in detail, focusing on whether it met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). It was found that the agreement included all the mandatory terms and adhered to the principles of good-faith bargaining. The court concluded that the agreement was in the best interests of the employees, as it provided them with better working conditions and protections. The court approved the collective agreement, noting that it met the statutory requirements and was beneficial to the employees.
The Federal Court granted the application for approval of the collective agreement between Queensland Facade Installations Pty Ltd and the CFMEU, effective from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2015. This decision confirmed the validity and enforceability of the agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
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.