Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2013] FWCA 826

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/4668)

CV INTERIORS PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU PLASTERING INDUSTRY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

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

Application for approval of the CV Interiors Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Plastering Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the CV Interiors Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Plastering 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

In the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union sought approval for the CV Interiors Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Plastering Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015. The dispute centred on whether the proposed agreement met the necessary legal standards for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The union argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, while the company contended that certain provisions were overly restrictive and detrimental to its business operations.

The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement complied with the "better off overall test" and whether it included any provisions that were unfair or contrary to public policy. The Commission examined the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, particularly those related to wages, hours of work, and other employment conditions. It assessed whether the agreement provided for a fair and equitable balance of rights and obligations between the parties and whether it adhered to the statutory requirements for enterprise agreements.

After thorough consideration, the Commission found that the agreement did not meet the better off overall test as it placed excessive restrictions on the company's ability to manage its business effectively. The Commission also noted that certain provisions were deemed unfair and contrary to public policy. Consequently, the application for approval was rejected. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining a balance between the rights of employees and the operational needs of employers in enterprise agreements.

The Commission's final orders included the rejection of the proposed enterprise agreement, with specific reasons provided for the decision. The company and the union were directed to continue negotiations to reach a revised agreement that would satisfy the statutory requirements for approval.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established