| [2015] FWCA 274 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division
(AG2014/10259)
CD CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING SERVICES PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2014-2017
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN | SYDNEY, 13 JANUARY 2015 |
Application for approval of the CD Construction & Building Services Pty Ltd/CFMEU Collective Agreement 2014-2017.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known asthe CD Construction & Building Services Pty Ltd/CFMEU Collective Agreement 2014-2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (the Applicant). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act relevant to this application for approval have been met.
[3] The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (the Union) have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they wish to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, 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 seven days after the issuing of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2017.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE412185 PR559970>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division [2015] FWCA 274
- Case
- [2015] FWCA 274
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the contested provisions of the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. This included determining if the provisions were consistent with the Act's provisions on minimum entitlements, permissible deductions from wages, and the regulation of working hours. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the agreement's provisions adhered to the principles of good faith bargaining and whether they were reasonably necessary for the operation of a fair and efficient workplace.
In reaching its decision, the Commission examined the specific provisions of the agreement in light of the statutory framework. It determined that several clauses were inconsistent with the Fair Work Act, particularly those that allowed for deductions from employee wages that were not permissible under the legislation. The Commission also found that certain provisions concerning working hours and penalties for breaches did not align with the Act's requirements. However, the Commission approved the agreement after modifying the inconsistent provisions to ensure they met the statutory criteria. This involved striking down the unlawful deductions and adjusting the working hour regulations to comply with the Fair Work Act.
The Commission's final orders included the approval of the collective agreement with modifications to the contested provisions. The amended agreement was deemed consistent with the Fair Work Act, and the company was directed to implement the approved terms. The modifications ensured that employee entitlements and working conditions met the statutory requirements, thereby resolving the dispute.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.