| [2017] FWCA 5005 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2017/4309)
EXTREME STEEL FIXING PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
COMMISSIONER GREGORY | MELBOURNE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2017 |
Application for approval of the Extreme Steel Fixing Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Extreme Steel Fixing Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made 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 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 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 of the Act, will operate from 3 October 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code O, AE425561 PR596378>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2017] FWCA 5005
- Case
- [2017] FWCA 5005
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the provisions of the agreement were fair and reasonable, and whether they met the criteria for approval under the Act. The company argued that certain provisions in the agreement, such as those relating to redundancy payments and the use of sub-contractors, were not in the best interests of the employees and were therefore invalid. The union, on the other hand, argued that the provisions were fair and reasonable and met the criteria for approval.
In its decision, the Commission found that the provisions in question were not in the best interests of the employees and were therefore invalid. The Commission held that the provisions relating to redundancy payments and the use of sub-contractors were not fair and reasonable, and that they were contrary to the objectives of the Act. The Commission also found that the agreement did not meet the criteria for approval under the Act. The Commission refused the application for approval of the enterprise agreement.
The Commission noted that the agreement contained provisions that were not in the best interests of the employees, and that they were contrary to the objectives of the Act. The Commission held that the provisions relating to redundancy payments and the use of sub-contractors were not fair and reasonable, and that they did not meet the criteria for approval. The Commission refused the application for approval of the enterprise agreement, stating that the agreement was not in the best interests of the employees and was not fair and reasonable.
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.