Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2013] FWCA 822

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/4656)

CHT CONTRACTING AND THE CFMEU BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 6 FEBRUARY 2013

Application for approval of the CHT Contracting 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 CHT Contracting 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 13 February 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 Fair Work Commission was an application for the approval of the CHT Contracting and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Building and Construction Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015. The primary dispute centred on whether the agreement complied with the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly regarding the provisions for employee representation and procedural fairness. The Commission was tasked with assessing if the agreement met the necessary standards to be approved and registered.

The legal issues the Commission needed to resolve included whether the agreement's provisions for employee representation were adequate and if the procedural fairness provisions were sufficient to protect employees' rights. Additionally, the Commission had to determine if the agreement contained any terms that were contrary to public policy or inconsistent with the overarching objectives of the Fair Work Act. The analysis involved a detailed examination of the agreement's content and its alignment with legislative standards.

The Commission found that the agreement did not sufficiently address the requirements for employee representation and procedural fairness, as it did not provide clear mechanisms for these processes. The Commission was also concerned that some terms of the agreement were potentially contrary to public policy. Consequently, the application for approval was dismissed. The Commission emphasised the importance of these provisions in ensuring fair and effective workplace relations and noted that the agreement did not adequately address these critical areas.

No orders were made as the application for approval was dismissed. The Commission's decision highlighted the need for more robust provisions in future enterprise agreements to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act and to protect the rights of employees.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established