Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2013] FWCA 2031

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/5815)

UNITED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 5 APRIL 2013

Application for approval of the United Construction Services Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the United Construction Services Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). 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 CFMEU, 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, will operate from 12 April 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2015.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

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 the United Construction Services Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015. The union argued that the agreement should be approved as it met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, including being a "better off overall test" (BOOT) agreement. The applicant, United Construction Services, opposed the application, claiming that the agreement did not meet the BOOT criteria and contained provisions that were not in the best interests of the employees.

The central legal issues for the commission to decide were whether the agreement satisfied the BOOT requirement and if it contained any unfair provisions that were not in the best interests of the employees. The commission had to examine the terms and conditions of the agreement, including wages, hours of work, and other employment-related matters, to determine if it met the legislative requirements. Additionally, the commission had to consider if the agreement contained any provisions that were not in the best interests of the employees, which would render it invalid.

After examining the agreement, the commission found that it met the BOOT criteria and contained no unfair provisions. The commission held that the agreement provided employees with improved terms and conditions of employment, including higher wages and better working conditions, compared to the applicable award. The commission also found that the agreement contained provisions that were in the best interests of the employees, including provisions for dispute resolution and the protection of employee rights. Consequently, the commission approved the agreement.

The commission's decision was that the United Construction Services Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 met the legislative requirements and was in the best interests of the employees. The commission approved the agreement, which would now govern the employment conditions of the employees covered by the agreement. The decision provides clarity for employers and employees in the building and construction industry regarding the terms and conditions of employment and the legislative requirements for enterprise agreements.

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