DECISION

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

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2017/1677)

CONTRACT GLASS & ALUMINIUM PTY LTD AND CFMEU (FFPD) FACTORY ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 24 MAY 2017

Application for approval of the Contract Glass & Aluminium Pty Ltd and CFMEU (FFPD) Factory Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Contract Glass & Aluminium Pty Ltd and CFMEU (FFPD) Factory Enterprise Agreement 2017 (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 31 May 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 15 August 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The present case involved an application for the approval of the Factory Enterprise Agreement between Glass & Aluminium Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (FFPD). The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission, a tribunal established under the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the agreement met the requirements of the Act, specifically whether it was a "better off overall test" (BOOT) agreement. This test requires that the terms of the agreement be at least as good as the relevant award or applicable national employment standards.

The Commission had to determine if the agreement provided for conditions that were no worse than those provided by the relevant award or national employment standards, and whether it included a mechanism for resolving disputes. The application was challenged on several grounds, including concerns about the fairness of certain clauses and the adequacy of the dispute resolution provisions. The company argued that the agreement was fair and met all legal requirements, while the union contended that certain provisions did not comply with the statutory standards.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the Commission found that the agreement did indeed meet the BOOT requirement. The Commission held that the agreement provided for conditions that were no worse than those in the relevant award and included a dispute resolution mechanism that was sufficient. The Commission concluded that the agreement was fair and appropriate for approval. The application was therefore approved, allowing the agreement to come into effect.

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