Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Summary

[2018] FWCA 1432

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

decision

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

(AG2018/606)

Reo-Tec Constructions Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
Commissioner Lee	MELBOURNE, 9 MARCH 2018

Application for approval of the Reo-Tec Constructions Pty Ltd and the CFMEU (Victorian Construction and General Division) Enterprise Agreement 2016-2018.

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Reo-Tec Constructions 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.

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.

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.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 16 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 applicant, Reo-Tec Constructions Pty Ltd, sought approval of an enterprise agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) (Victorian Construction and General Division). The dispute came before the Fair Work Commission, an Australian industrial relations tribunal. The CFMEU contested the application on the basis that the agreement contained terms that were not sufficiently clear or specific to ensure the employees were adequately protected, in particular the terms related to the classification of workers and the application of wage rates.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the terms of the agreement were sufficiently clear and specific to warrant approval, and whether the agreement provided adequate protections for the employees. The Commission considered the nature of the industry, the bargaining power of the parties, and the specific terms of the agreement. The Commission also examined whether the agreement complied with the relevant statutory provisions, including the requirement that the agreement must not detrimentally affect the employees.

The Commission found that the agreement was sufficiently clear and specific to warrant approval. The Commission considered that the agreement provided adequate protections for the employees, and that it complied with the statutory requirements. The Commission noted that the agreement was the product of good faith bargaining between the parties, and that it reflected the particular circumstances of the industry and the workplace. The Commission was satisfied that the agreement provided for appropriate classification of workers and the application of wage rates.

The Commission approved the enterprise agreement, subject to certain minor modifications to ensure compliance with the relevant statutory provisions. The modifications related to the calculation of penalty rates and the application of certain provisions to employees who were not members of the union. The modifications were considered minor and did not significantly alter the overall terms of the agreement.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established