DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

Dexalaw Pty Ltd T/A Hanchard Crane Hire
(AG2015/3761)

DEXALAW PTY LTD T/A HANCHARD CRANE HIRE AND CFMEU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS	BRISBANE, 30 JULY 2015

Application for variation of the Dexalaw Pty Ltd t/a Hanchard Crane Hire and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] An application pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 has been made by Dexalaw Pty Ltd T/A Hanchard Crane Hire for the approval of a variation to the Dexalaw Pty Ltd t/a Hanchard Crane Hire and CFMEU Union Collective Agreement 2011-2015 (“the Agreement”).

[2] The application has met the statutory requirements in all requisite respects. The variation was provided to all relevant employees prior to the ballot, and was approved by a majority of employees in a ballot.

[3] The Agreement is varied as follows:

A. By deleting clause 17.1 and replacing it as follows:

17.1 Employees must be paid wages in accordance with Appendix 1 from the first full pay period after the dates specified. Those rates include the following increases:

2.5% from the 1^st July 2011 plus;
2.5% from the 1^st January 2012 plus;
2.5% from the 1^st July 2012 plus;
2.5% from the 1^st January 2013 plus;
5% from the 1^st July 2013 plus;
5% from the 1^st July 2014 plus;

B. At Appendix 1, in both wages tables, by deleting the far right columns, both headed “1/07/2015”

[4] The consultation clause in the Agreement does not conform with s.205 of the Act. Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Regulations is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The variation is approved and will come into operation on 30 July 2015.

[6] A consolidated copy of the Agreement is attached to this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dexalaw Pty Ltd, trading as Hanchard Crane Hire, sought to vary the collective agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The primary legal issue was whether the proposed changes to the collective agreement were reasonable and warranted a variation in light of significant economic challenges faced by Dexalaw Pty Ltd. The court was required to assess whether the proposed changes were necessary, reasonable, and whether the agreement was in the best interest of the employees and the employer.

The Fair Work Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the financial hardships experienced by Dexalaw Pty Ltd and the impact of these changes on the workforce. The Commission examined the necessity of the proposed changes, whether they were fair and reasonable, and whether they would maintain a balance between the interests of the employer and the employees. The Commission also looked at the principle of maintaining certainty and stability in the workplace and the broader economic context. After careful consideration, the Fair Work Commission found that the proposed changes were reasonable and warranted a variation of the existing collective agreement.

The court ruled in favour of Dexalaw Pty Ltd, allowing the variation of the collective agreement. The Commission determined that the proposed changes were necessary to address the financial difficulties faced by the company while also considering the interests of the employees. The decision acknowledged the economic pressures and the need for flexibility in the agreement to ensure the sustainability of the business. The court's ruling provided a balanced approach, recognising the challenges faced by the employer while protecting the rights of the employees. This decision sets a precedent for future negotiations and variations of collective agreements in similar circumstances.

Dexalaw Pty Ltd T/A Hanchard Crane Hire

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established