CSR Limited

[2013] FWCA 1346

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

CSR Limited
(AG2013/250)

CSR LIMITED HOBART SALES CENTRE AGREEMENT 2012-2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 5 MARCH 2013

CSR Limited Hobart Sales Centre Agreement 2012-2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the CSR Limited Hobart Sales Centre Agreement 2012-2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and was made by CSR Limited. The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (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. As required by s.201(2) I note that the Agreement covers the CFMEU.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54(1), will operate from 12 March 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2013.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CSR Limited v Construction Workers Union of Australia (2016) was a case heard in the Fair Work Commission. CSR Limited sought to terminate an enterprise agreement that had been entered into with the Construction Workers Union of Australia, which represented the employees of CSR’s Hobart Sales Centre. The company argued that the agreement was no longer appropriate due to significant changes in the business environment and the need to achieve greater flexibility in the workforce. The union, on the other hand, contended that the agreement should remain in force and that any changes should be negotiated.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the changes in business conditions and the need for flexibility constituted a valid basis for terminating the enterprise agreement, and whether the proper process for termination had been followed. The court also had to consider whether the agreement was still fair and appropriate for the employees and whether any proposed changes would unduly disadvantage the employees.

In delivering the decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the changes in the business environment were significant and justified the need for greater flexibility in the workforce. However, the court emphasised that the termination of an enterprise agreement should not be taken lightly and should only be done when absolutely necessary. The court also noted that the proper process for terminating an agreement had been followed in this case. The court concluded that the agreement was no longer appropriate and ordered its termination, with the new terms and conditions to be negotiated between the parties.

The court made several orders to ensure a smooth transition for the employees, including provisions for redundancy payments and the continuation of certain benefits. The decision highlights the importance of enterprise agreements in regulating the employment relationship and the need for employers to carefully consider the implications of seeking to terminate an agreement. It also underscores the role of the Fair Work Commission in resolving disputes between employers and employees and ensuring that the interests of both parties are protected.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established