DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2017/807)

SCOPE SAFETY SYSTEMS (VICTORIA) PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 22 MARCH 2017

Application for approval of the Scope Safety Systems (Victoria) Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Scope Safety Systems (Victoria) Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) 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 29 March 2017. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicants, Scope Safety Systems (Victoria) Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Victorian Construction and General Division), sought approval of an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, with the Commission’s President, His Honour Deputy President Hamberger and Commissioner Holmes presiding. The union argued that the agreement did not meet the "better off overall test" (BOOT) required for approval. They contended that the agreement did not provide employees with adequate benefits and protections, particularly in relation to working conditions and entitlements. The company, on the other hand, argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and provided necessary flexibility to operate in a competitive market.

The Commission had to determine whether the enterprise agreement complied with the statutory requirements, including the BOOT. The Commission examined the agreement's provisions, including those relating to wages, conditions, and dispute resolution mechanisms. It also had to consider the views of the parties and any relevant evidence provided. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for a 2.5% increase in wages and better shift penalties, but also contained provisions that reduced some entitlements, such as penalty rates for weekend work. The union argued that these reductions outweighed the benefits, while the company argued that the agreement provided necessary flexibility to remain competitive.

The Commission found that the agreement met the BOOT, despite the union's concerns. The Commission noted that the agreement provided for a modest increase in wages and improved shift penalties, which were significant benefits for the employees. While the agreement did reduce some entitlements, the Commission found that these reductions were justified by the need for flexibility in a competitive market. The Commission also noted that the agreement provided for robust dispute resolution mechanisms, which would protect employees' rights. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and approved it under the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission approved the enterprise agreement between Scope Safety Systems (Victoria) Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Victorian Construction and General Division) for the period 2016-2018. The Commission found that the agreement met the "better off overall test" required for approval, despite the union's concerns. The agreement provided for a modest increase in wages and improved shift penalties, which were significant benefits for the employees. While the agreement did reduce some entitlements, the Commission found that these reductions were justified by the need for flexibility in a competitive market. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and provided necessary protections for employees.

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