DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2017/1829)

NADRI FAMILY TRUST T/AS DNF TILING AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) TILELAYERS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 2 JUNE 2017

Application for approval of the Nadri Family Trust T/As DNF Tiling 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 Nadri Family Trust T/As DNF Tiling 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 9 June 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

In the matter of the Fair Work Commission, the Nadri Family Trust T/As DNF Tiling and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) were before the commission to seek approval for the Tilelayers Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018. The union submitted that the agreement should be approved as it met the criteria for modern awards and provided for fair and equitable terms and conditions for employees. The employer argued that the agreement should not be approved as it imposed terms and conditions that were not commercially viable and would result in significant financial losses. The commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The commission considered whether the agreement met the criteria for approval under section 234 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The commission found that the agreement provided for terms and conditions that were no less favourable than the applicable modern award and met the requirements for a simple, clear, and fair agreement. The commission also considered the employer's argument that the agreement imposed commercially unviable terms and conditions. The commission found that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to support this claim and that the agreement provided for reasonable and fair terms and conditions for employees.

The commission approved the Tilelayers Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018, finding that it met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The commission found that the agreement provided for terms and conditions that were no less favourable than the applicable modern award and met the requirements for a simple, clear, and fair agreement. The commission rejected the employer's argument that the agreement imposed commercially unviable terms and conditions, finding that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to support this claim. The commission noted that the agreement provided for reasonable and fair terms and conditions for employees and was in the best interests of the employees and the employer.

The commission's final order was that the Tilelayers Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018 be approved as a registered agreement under section 175 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The agreement was to be registered by the commission and would have effect from the date of registration. The employer and the union were required to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, and any disputes arising under the agreement were to be referred to the commission for resolution.

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