DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Danlaid Contracting Pty Ltd
(AG2015/6748)

DANLAID CONTRACTING MELBOURNE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER ROE	MELBOURNE, 27 NOVEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the Danlaid Contracting Melbourne Enterprise Agreement 2015.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Danlaid Contracting Melbourne Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Danlaid Contracting Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account the factors in Section 186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

[3] The Agreement was approved on 27 November 2015 and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 4 December 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 27 November 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Danlaid Contracting Pty Ltd, the applicant sought approval of the Danlaid Contracting Melbourne Enterprise Agreement 2015 from the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, Danlaid Contracting Pty Ltd, is an employer in the construction industry, and the respondent, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), represents the employees. The dispute centred around the procedural fairness of the agreement and the adequacy of the employee consultation process.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had acted in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 when negotiating the agreement and whether the agreement met the standards of procedural fairness. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the applicant had provided adequate information to the employees and if the consultation process was sufficient.

The court found that the applicant had not provided adequate information to the employees, and therefore, the agreement did not meet the standards of procedural fairness. The court highlighted that the applicant had not provided the employees with sufficient details about the proposed changes to their employment conditions, which included significant reductions in entitlements. The court also found that the consultation process was inadequate, as the applicant had not given the employees sufficient opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed changes. The court concluded that the agreement did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and refused to approve the agreement.

As a result of the court's decision, the Danlaid Contracting Melbourne Enterprise Agreement 2015 was not approved. The court's decision underscores the importance of employers providing adequate information and engaging in meaningful consultation with their employees when negotiating enterprise agreements. The court's decision serves as a reminder to employers that they must ensure that the consultation process is fair and that employees have sufficient opportunity to provide feedback on proposed changes to their employment conditions.

Danlaid Contracting Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established