Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2013] FWCA 153

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2012/14406)

SHEPPARTON TERRAZZO WORKS PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU PRECAST PANEL INDUSTRY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 9 JANUARY 2013

Application for approval of the Shepparton Terrazzo Works Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Precast Panel Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Shepparton Terrazzo Works Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Precast Panel 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 16 January 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 case involved an application for approval of the Shepparton Terrazzo Works Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Precast Panel Industry Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015. The applicant, the union, sought approval from the Fair Work Commission. The respondent, Shepparton Terrazzo Works Pty Ltd, opposed the application, raising concerns about certain provisions in the agreement. The Fair Work Commission heard and determined the matter.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to assess whether the agreement provided for a fair and efficient workplace, and whether it adhered to the requirements for proper negotiation and good faith bargaining. Additionally, the Commission had to examine the fairness of particular clauses concerning hours of work, penalty rates, and the definition of "employee."

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement, overall, provided for a fair and efficient workplace and was the product of proper negotiation and good faith bargaining. However, the Commission identified certain clauses that did not meet the criteria for approval. These clauses related to the definition of "employee," which the Commission deemed overly broad and potentially disadvantaging workers. Consequently, the Commission approved the agreement with modifications to the definition of "employee" to ensure it aligned with the requirements of the Act.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the agreement be approved with certain modifications to the definition of "employee" to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. These modifications were aimed at ensuring that the definition was not overly broad and that it protected the rights of workers fairly and effectively. The Commission's decision balanced the need for a fair and efficient workplace with the statutory requirements for enterprise agreements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established