DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2017/2269)

SKY GROUP SERVICES PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) TILELAYERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 27 JUNE 2017

Application for approval of the Sky Group Services Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Tilelayers Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Sky Group Services Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Tilelayers Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. 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 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union 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 of the Act, will operate from 4 July 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Sky Group Services Pty Ltd, sought approval for an enterprise agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Victorian Construction and General Division). The union opposed the application, leading to a dispute before the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue before the court was whether the agreement met the necessary criteria under the Fair Work Act 2009 to be approved and registered as a registered agreement. This involved examining if the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms, was free from any unlawful content, and met the procedural requirements for negotiation and agreement.

The court examined the negotiation process, the terms of the agreement, and the specific provisions that the union found objectionable. The union raised concerns about provisions related to the employment of subcontractors, the classification of workers, and the operation of the agreement in light of existing awards. The court assessed these objections against the statutory framework, considering both the letter and spirit of the legislation in ensuring the agreement was fair and reasonable. The court found that the negotiation process was genuine, and the terms of the agreement, while not perfect, did not breach the statutory requirements for fairness and reasonableness. The court also found that the union's objections were either misplaced or could be addressed through minor modifications.

The Fair Work Commission approved the agreement, subject to certain modifications that addressed the union's concerns. The court determined that the overall balance of the agreement's terms was fair and reasonable, and it met the necessary statutory criteria. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the agreement's provisions, the negotiation process, and the union's objections. The final orders included the approval of the agreement with the specified modifications, ensuring that it complied with the Fair Work Act 2009.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established