DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2017/618)

TEKNI STEELFIXING PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 7 MARCH 2017

Application for approval of the Tekni Steelfixing 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 Tekni Steelfixing 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 14 March 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 Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union applied for approval of an enterprise agreement between Tekni Steelfixing Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) for the period 2016-2018. The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The commission had to determine if the agreement contained all the prescribed minimum terms and conditions, and if it had been made in accordance with the processes set out in the Act. Additionally, the commission considered whether the agreement was in the best interests of the employees and the broader community.

The court examined whether the agreement was genuinely negotiated and if it provided for fair and reasonable terms. The union argued that the agreement was a result of proper negotiations and that it contained all the necessary provisions, including those related to wages, working hours, and other employment conditions. The company, on the other hand, raised concerns about certain clauses and the overall fairness of the agreement. The commission also assessed if the agreement met the "better off overall test," which required that employees be no worse off financially and at least as well off in other respects as they would be under the applicable award or registered agreement.

The commission found that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and contained all the prescribed minimum terms and conditions. It was satisfied that the agreement provided for fair and reasonable terms and conditions, and that it met the "better off overall test." The commission approved the agreement, noting that it was in the best interests of the employees and the broader community. The approval was based on the comprehensive nature of the agreement, its alignment with the objectives of the Fair Work Act, and its potential to provide stability and fairness in the workplace.

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