Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2013] FWCA 3332

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/1226)

CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD/CFMEU BARANGAROO COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2013-2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER MACDONALD	SYDNEY, 28 MAY 2013

Concrete Reinforcement Services Pty Ltd/CFMEU Barangaroo Collective Agreement 2013-2014.

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Concrete Reinforcement Services Pty Ltd/CFMEU Barangaroo 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.

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] The Agreement is approved in accordance with s.54 of the Act and will operate from 4 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

Concrete Reinforcement Services Pty Ltd (CRS) sought a declaration from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) was in breach of the Barangaroo Collective Agreement 2013-2014. The dispute arose when CRS alleged that the CFMEU had acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the terms of the collective agreement. The FWC was the court tasked with determining whether the CFMEU had breached the agreement.

The legal issues before the FWC involved interpreting the terms of the collective agreement and assessing whether the actions of the CFMEU constituted a breach. The primary focus was on whether the CFMEU's actions were in line with the provisions outlined in the agreement, particularly those relating to work practices and obligations. CRS argued that the union's actions were inconsistent with the terms of the agreement, while the CFMEU contended that its actions were permissible under the agreement.

The FWC examined the specific provisions of the Barangaroo Collective Agreement 2013-2014 and considered the context in which the alleged breaches occurred. The Commission found that the CFMEU had not breached the agreement. The FWC determined that the union's actions were consistent with the terms of the agreement and did not constitute a breach. As such, the FWC dismissed CRS's application for a declaration of breach.

The FWC's decision resulted in a dismissal of CRS's application, with no declaration of breach issued against the CFMEU. The union's actions were found to be in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement, and therefore, no breach was identified.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established