Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2013] FWCA 5241

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/7756)

REGEMADE CRANE & RIGGING PTY LTD/ CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT (ACT) 2013-2016

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER DEEGAN	CANBERRA, 31 JULY 2013

Application for approval of the Regemade Crane & Rigging Pty Ltd/ CFMEU Collective Agreement (ACT) 2013-2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Regemade Crane & Rigging Pty Ltd/ CFMEU Collective Agreement (ACT) 2013-2016 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] 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.

[3] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 7 August 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 May 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application for the approval of the Regemade Crane & Rigging Pty Ltd/CFME Union Collective Agreement (ACT) 2013-2016. The dispute arose between Regemade Crane & Rigging Pty Ltd, an employer, and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFME Union), a trade union representing the employees. The primary issue was whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court was tasked with determining whether the agreement complied with the legislative provisions, including the requirement for the agreement to meet the better-off-overall test and the public interest test. Specifically, the court needed to consider if the agreement provided employees with benefits that were demonstrably better than what they would receive under the applicable award or registered agreement and if the agreement was in the public interest.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not meet the better-off-overall test for a significant portion of the workforce. Despite some benefits for certain employees, the overall effect was that many employees would be worse off compared to their existing conditions. Furthermore, the commission concluded that the agreement did not sufficiently demonstrate that it was in the public interest, as it failed to adequately address broader economic and social considerations. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established