Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2013] FWCA 4663

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/1800)

N & M CABINETS AND CFMEU - FFPD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Timber and paper products industry
COMMISSIONER BLAIR	MELBOURNE, 15 JULY 2013

Application for approval of the N & M Cabinets and CFMEU - FFPD Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the N & M Cabinets and CFMEU - FFPD Enterprise Agreement 2013 (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 (CFMEU).

[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 CFMEU, being the 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 22 July 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 January 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission was an application for the approval of the N & M Cabinets and CFMEU - FFPD Enterprise Agreement 2013. The dispute arose between N & M Cabinets Pty Ltd, represented by its director, and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The primary issue was whether the proposed enterprise agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The CFMEU argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while N & M Cabinets contended that certain provisions were unfair and not genuinely intended for the benefit of the employees.

The Fair Work Commission considered several legal issues, including whether the agreement provided for genuine consultation between the parties, whether it contained provisions that were unfair and could not be disregarded, and whether the agreement was genuinely intended for the benefit of the employees. The court needed to determine if the agreement complied with the mandatory terms and conditions outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the process of forming the agreement was procedurally fair. Additionally, the commission examined whether the agreement met the "better off overall test," ensuring that employees were not worse off financially compared to their previous conditions.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the proposed enterprise agreement did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The commission concluded that the agreement did not genuinely intend to provide for the benefit of the employees, as certain provisions were found to be unfair. Furthermore, the process of forming the agreement was deemed procedurally unfair, and the better off overall test was not satisfied. Consequently, the application for approval of the enterprise agreement was dismissed. The commission did not find it necessary to make any further orders beyond its decision on the approval of the agreement.

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