Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd T/A Hanson’s

[2022] FWCA 1548

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd T/A Hanson’s

(AG2022/858)

Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd SA Plant Supervisors’ Agreement 2021

Cement and concrete products
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 9 MAY 2022

Application for approval of the Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd SA Plant Supervisors’ Agreement 2021

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd SA Plant Supervisors’ Agreement 2021 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd T/A Hanson’s. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

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 is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 16 May 2022. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 November 2025.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd, trading as Hanson’s, applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd SA Plant Supervisors’ Agreement 2021. The application arose from negotiations between Hanson’s and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMU), representing the employees. The CFMMU argued that the agreement did not provide adequate protection for employees, particularly in terms of redundancy and termination provisions.

The primary legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the agreement provided fair and reasonable terms and conditions for employees, including adequate protections against unfair dismissal and redundancy. The Commission also needed to consider if the agreement met the good faith bargaining requirements stipulated in the Act.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement did not adequately protect employees from unfair dismissal or redundancy, and therefore did not meet the statutory requirements for approval. The Commission noted that the redundancy provisions were overly broad and did not provide sufficient protection for employees, particularly in the event of a company restructure. The termination provisions were also found to be inadequate, as they allowed for termination without just cause or reason. The Commission concluded that the agreement failed to meet the good faith bargaining requirements, as the CFMMU had not been provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision. As a result, the application for approval of the agreement was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established