Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2013] FWCA 3721

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/6806)

SHORELINE BUILDING CONTRACTORS PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT (ACT) 2013-2016

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER DEEGAN	CANBERRA, 11 JUNE 2013

Application for approval of the Shoreline Building contractors Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement (ACT) 2013-2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Shoreline Building contractors 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 18 June 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union sought approval of the Shoreline Building Contractors Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement (ACT) 2013-2016. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, where the union argued that the proposed agreement met the necessary criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement contained provisions that unfairly disadvantaged employees, whether it provided adequate protection for employees' rights, and whether it complied with the requirements for an enterprise agreement under the Act. The Commission was tasked with assessing the provisions of the agreement against these criteria to determine if it should be approved.

The Commission found that the agreement contained several provisions that were not in the best interests of the employees. These included clauses that allowed for reduced penalty rates and increased working hours, which the Commission determined were unfair and did not provide adequate protection for employees' rights. The Commission also found that the agreement did not comply with certain requirements under the Act, such as the need for the agreement to be in writing and to be signed by authorised representatives of the employer and the union. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission's decision serves as an important reminder of the need for enterprise agreements to adequately protect employees' rights and interests. Employers and unions must ensure that any proposed agreement complies with the requirements of the Fair Work Act and provides fair and reasonable terms for employees. Failure to do so may result in the agreement being refused approval by the Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established