DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2016/7386)

PAHM INVESTMENTS TRUST T/AS AUSTRALIAN CHUTES & ENGINEERING PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 8 DECEMBER 2016

Application for approval of the Pahm Investments Trust T/As Australian Chutes & Engineering 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 Pahm Investments Trust T/As Australian Chutes & Engineering 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 15 December 2016. 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 matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application for approval of an enterprise agreement between the Pahm Investments Trust trading as Australian Chutes & Engineering Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Victorian Construction and General Division). The union sought approval for the agreement, which outlined the terms and conditions of employment for its members within the company. The case was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which is tasked with overseeing and approving enterprise agreements in Australia.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed enterprise agreement complied with the statutory requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the agreement met the 'better off overall test' (BOOT), which requires that employees be no worse off financially and at least some employees better off financially under the terms of the agreement compared to their previous conditions. Additionally, the Commission examined whether the agreement contained all the mandatory terms prescribed by the Act and if it adhered to the procedural requirements for its approval.

In reaching its decision, the Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties, including financial data, bargaining records, and the views of the union and the employer. The Commission found that the agreement did indeed satisfy the BOOT, as it provided for wage increases and improved conditions for some employees, outweighing any negative impacts on others. Furthermore, the agreement included all mandatory terms and was procedurally sound. Consequently, the Commission approved the enterprise agreement, recognising its compliance with the statutory framework and its potential to benefit the employees involved.

The Fair Work Commission approved the Pahm Investments Trust T/As Australian Chutes & Engineering Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018. The Commission found that the agreement met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, including the better off overall test, and contained all mandatory terms. The decision was made in favour of the union, allowing the agreement to proceed with the intended terms and conditions for the employees within the company.

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