HELLICK and WALTZ

[2018] FWCA 112

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

decision

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

(AG2017/6519)

Metsquare Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2017-2018

Building, metal and civil construction industries
Commissioner Gregory	MELBOURNE, 5 JANUARY 2018

Application for approval of the Metsquare Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2017-2018.

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Metsquare Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2017-2018 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. 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 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy 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) I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 12 January 2018. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between the father and the mother concerning the relocation of their child to another country. The father sought to move to Country B with their child, while the mother opposed this relocation. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining the best interests of the child in this matter.

The central legal issue was whether the father should be permitted to relocate to Country B with the child, given that both parents proposed a significant change in circumstances for the child. The court had to weigh the potential benefits of the relocation against the disruption it would cause to the child’s established lifestyle and relationships. Additionally, the court considered the child’s relationship with both parents and their respective extended families, as well as the principle of equal shared parental responsibility.

In reaching its decision, the court recognised the finely balanced nature of the case. It acknowledged the loving relationship the child enjoyed with both parents and their extended families. The court determined that, despite the proposed relocation being a major change for the child, it was in the child's best interests to relocate with the father to Country B. The court also noted that orders for equal shared parental responsibility and equal or substantial and significant time were neither sought nor practicable in this case. Consequently, the court granted the father's application to relocate with the child.

The final orders of the court permitted the father to relocate to Country B with the child, subject to certain conditions aimed at ensuring the child's welfare and maintaining the mother’s involvement in the child's life.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established