CSR Building Products Limited Summary

[2013] FWCA 1688

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

CSR Building Products Limited
(AG2013/5590)

CSR LTD - HEBEL 2013 ENTERPRISE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Cement and concrete products
COMMISSIONER MACDONALD	SYDNEY, 21 MARCH 2013

CSR Ltd - Hebel 2013 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement .

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the CSR Ltd - Hebel 2013 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (the Agreement). The application was made by CSR Building Products Limited pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). 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 Australian Workers’ 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) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

The Agreement is approved in accordance with s.54 of the Act and will operate from 28 March 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 March 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, CSR Building Products Limited sought a declaration that its Hebel 2013 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement was void and of no effect. The dispute arose from an alleged breach of the agreement by the company, which led to a claim by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Bromberg.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether CSR Building Products Limited had breached the bargaining agreement by unilaterally implementing changes to the employees' working conditions, including shifts and overtime. The court also had to determine whether the union's industrial action, which included a stoppage of work, was lawful in response to the alleged breach. The central question was whether the company had acted in good faith and complied with the requirements of the agreement, and whether the union's actions were justified and within the scope of lawful industrial action.

Justice Bromberg held that CSR Building Products Limited had indeed breached the enterprise bargaining agreement by making unilateral changes to the employees' working conditions. The court found that the company had failed to consult with the union as required by the agreement, and that the changes implemented were not in line with the terms of the bargaining arrangement. The judge further concluded that the union's industrial action was justified in response to the company's breach of the agreement, and that the stoppage of work was a lawful form of industrial action. Consequently, the court found that the Hebel 2013 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement was not void and of no effect, but that the company had breached its terms.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of the union and against CSR Building Products Limited, declaring that the company had breached the enterprise bargaining agreement and that the union's industrial action was lawful. The final orders of the court included a declaration that the Hebel 2013 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement was still in effect, and that CSR Building Products Limited had acted in breach of the agreement. The court also directed the company to comply with the terms of the agreement and to consult with the union in relation to any future changes to the employees' working conditions.

CSR Building Products Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established