DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2018/541)

VICTORIA HOIST RENTALS PTY LTD AND CFMEU (VICTORIAN CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL DIVISION) MASTER CLIMBING ACCESS EQUIPMENT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2016 - 2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER WILSON	MELBOURNE, 23 MARCH 2018

Application for approval of the Victoria Hoist Rentals Pty Ltd and CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Master Climbing Access Equipment Enterprise Agreement 2016 - 2018.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Victoria Hoist Rentals Pty Ltd and CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Master Climbing Access Equipment 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 30 March 2018. 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 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and Victoria Hoist Rentals Pty Ltd sought approval of a proposed enterprise agreement. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The agreement aimed to regulate employment terms for workers in the climbing access equipment industry, including provisions on wages, hours, leave, and other working conditions. The FWC had to determine if the agreement met the criteria for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the FWV had to assess whether the agreement was in the public interest, whether it promoted high-quality employment, and whether it ensured that employees were not worse off.

The primary legal issue was whether the agreement complied with the statutory requirements for approval, including whether it met the 'better off overall test' (BOOT). This test requires that employees covered by the agreement are not worse off overall than they would be under the applicable award or safety net. The FWC considered whether the proposed agreement provided a sufficient safety net for employees, and whether it promoted high-quality employment and the public interest.

The FWC found that the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval. The FWC considered the agreement provided an adequate safety net for employees, and that it promoted high-quality employment and the public interest. The FWC noted that the agreement provided for a minimum wage increase of 2.5% per year over the life of the agreement, and included provisions on leave, hours, and other working conditions. The FWC also found that the agreement provided for a dispute resolution process that would ensure that employees could effectively resolve disputes. The FWC was satisfied that the agreement met the BOOT, and that it would not lead to employees being worse off overall.

The FWC approved the proposed agreement, subject to certain modifications. The modifications related to the calculation of penalty rates for public holidays and the definition of 'work'. The FWC considered that these modifications were necessary to ensure that the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval. The FWC noted that the modifications did not significantly alter the overall terms and conditions of employment, and that they were necessary to ensure that the agreement provided an adequate safety net for employees. The FWC also noted that the modifications did not undermine the public interest or the promotion of high-quality employment.

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