Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2013] FWCA 3833

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/1461)

LLAMAPAT (NSW) PTY/CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2013-2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER MACDONALD	SYDNEY, 18 JUNE 2013

Application for approval of the Llamapat (NSW) Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2013-2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Llamapat (NSW) Pty Ltd/CFMEU Collective Agreement 2013-2014 (the Agreement). The application was made by the CFMEU pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). 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 it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved in accordance with s.54 of the Act and will operate from 25 June 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2014.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union sought approval of a collective agreement with Llamapat (NSW) Pty Ltd for the period 2013-2014. The dispute centred on the procedural fairness of the Commission's process in considering the application for approval. The Union argued that the Commission had failed to properly consider its submissions and had not afforded the Union procedural fairness in the assessment of the agreement.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Commission had acted in a procedurally fair manner in handling the application and whether the Commission had properly considered the submissions made by the Union. The Union contended that the Commission had not given adequate weight to its arguments and had failed to provide an opportunity for the Union to respond to specific points raised by the Commission.

In determining the matter, the court found that the Commission had indeed acted in a procedurally fair manner in handling the application. The court held that the Commission had considered the Union's submissions and had provided the Union with an opportunity to respond to specific points raised by the Commission. The court further held that the Commission had properly considered the submissions made by the Union and had not erred in law or procedure in approving the collective agreement.

As a result of the court's decision, the application for approval of the collective agreement was upheld, and the agreement was approved for the period 2013-2014. The court's decision provides guidance on the procedural fairness requirements for the Commission in considering applications for approval of collective agreements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established