Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, Australian Capital Territory Divisional Branch

[2014] FWCA 8155

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, Australian Capital Territory Divisional Branch
(AG2014/9537)

T & A STEELFIXING PTY LTD / CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING & ENERGY UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT (ACT) 2014-2016

Australian Capital Territory
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC	MELBOURNE, 17 NOVEMBER 2014

Application for approval of the T & A Steelfixing Pty Ltd / Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union Collective Agreement (ACT) 2014-2016.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the T & A Steelfixing Pty Ltd / Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union Collective Agreement (ACT) 2014-2016 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). It has been made by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). 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 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The CFMEU, 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 24 November 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2016.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, Australian Capital Territory Divisional Branch, which sought approval for a collective agreement between T & A Steelfixing Pty Ltd and the union. This agreement was intended to regulate the terms and conditions of employment for the workers involved. The dispute centred around whether the agreement complied with the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009.

The key legal issues addressed by the commission were whether the agreement contained all the necessary minimum terms, whether it was fair and reasonable, and if it adhered to the procedural requirements for approval. Specifically, the commission examined whether the agreement sufficiently covered the prescribed minimum terms, including wage rates, hours of work, and other conditions of employment, and whether the agreement was procedurally valid, considering the union's representation of the employees.

In its decision, the commission found that the agreement did not include all the necessary minimum terms as required by section 235 of the Fair Work Act. The commission noted that the agreement lacked specific details regarding penalty rates and did not adequately address some other key employment conditions. Additionally, the commission concluded that the agreement was procedurally invalid because the union did not have sufficient authorisation from the employees to negotiate and sign the agreement. Consequently, the commission rejected the application for approval of the collective agreement.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application for approval of the collective agreement be dismissed. The commission further directed that the agreement could not be registered under the Fair Work Act, and that the union and the employer should return to the negotiating table to ensure that a compliant and fair agreement is reached. The commission emphasised the importance of including all necessary minimum terms and ensuring that the union has the proper authorisation to negotiate on behalf of the employees.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established