DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

CPC Engineering Pty Ltd T/A CPC Goldfields
(AG2017/4298)

CPC ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2017

Mining industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN	MELBOURNE, 16 JANUARY 2018

Application for approval of the CPC Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2017.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the CPC Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by CPC Engineering Pty Ltd T/A CPC Goldfields. The agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure A. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[3] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, and on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement was approved on 16 January 2018 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 23 January 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 16 January 2022.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CPC Engineering Pty Ltd, trading as CPC Goldfields, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the CPC Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2017. The application was contested by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The central dispute was whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining if the agreement satisfied the criteria for good faith bargaining and if it provided for the fair and reasonable terms and conditions of employment.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the agreement demonstrated bona fide bargaining, if it covered the necessary minimum terms, and whether the process leading to the agreement was fair and reasonable. The union argued that the agreement did not reflect genuine bargaining efforts and failed to cover all required minimum terms. CPC Engineering, on the other hand, maintained that the agreement was the product of good faith negotiations and adequately covered all necessary terms. The Commission had to assess the evidence presented by both parties to ascertain the truth of these contentions.

The Fair Work Commission found that the evidence demonstrated that the agreement was indeed the result of good faith bargaining, as both parties had engaged in meaningful discussions and negotiations. The Commission also found that the agreement included all the required minimum terms, thereby satisfying the statutory criteria. The process leading to the agreement was deemed fair and reasonable, as there was no evidence of coercion or unfairness. Consequently, the Commission approved the CPC Engineering Enterprise Agreement 2017.

CPC Engineering Pty Ltd T/A CPC Goldfields

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established