Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2013] FWCA 1494

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/5470)

ULTIMATE TACTILE SYSTEMS PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU TILELAYERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 12 MARCH 2013

Application for approval of the Ultimate Tactile Systems Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Tilelayers Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Ultimate Tactile Systems Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Tilelayers 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 19 March 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

The matter before the court involved the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and Ultimate Tactile Systems Pty Ltd. The dispute was centred on the approval of the CFMEU Tilelayers Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015. The application for approval of the agreement was heard by the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue was whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine if the agreement was free from any illegality, did not adversely affect the operation of any other agreement, and was not contrary to public policy. Another issue was whether the agreement provided for the fair and reasonable resolution of workplace disputes, including appropriate mechanisms for handling disputes between the parties.

The court found that the agreement met all the necessary criteria for approval. It was lawful, did not conflict with any other agreements, and was not against public policy. The agreement also contained provisions for the fair and reasonable resolution of workplace disputes, including mechanisms for handling disputes between the parties. The court concluded that the agreement was fair and reasonable and approved it. As a result, the agreement became a registered agreement, binding on all employees and employers who were covered by it.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established