[2013] FWCA 9416 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement
McMahon Services Aust (Vic) Pty Ltd
(AG2013/11583)
MCMAHON SERVICES AUST (VIC) PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU DEMOLITION ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015
Building, metal and civil construction industries | |
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON | MELBOURNE, 3 DECEMBER 2013 |
Application for approval of the McMahon Services Aust (Vic) Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Demolition Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015.
[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the McMahon Services Aust (Vic) Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Demolition Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by McMahon Services Aust (Vic) Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.
[2] The application was not lodged within 14 days after the agreement was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b), in all the circumstances I consider it fair to extend the time for making the application to the date it was actually made.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54, will operate from 10 December 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 March 2015.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code J, AE405629 PR545165>
- AGLC
- McMahon Services Aust (Vic) Pty Ltd [2013] FWCA 9416
- Case
- [2013] FWCA 9416
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement should be approved, given that it contained terms that were not considered fair and reasonable. The Commission was required to consider the various aspects of the agreement, including wages, conditions, and dispute resolution mechanisms, and determine if they were appropriate and equitable. The applicant argued that the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable, while the union contended that certain provisions were not in the best interests of the employees.
In its decision, the Commission examined the terms of the proposed agreement in detail. It considered the economic context, the bargaining power of the parties, and the principles of industrial justice. The Commission found that while some provisions were fair and reasonable, others were not. Specifically, certain wage increases and conditions were deemed inadequate. The Commission also noted that the dispute resolution mechanisms were not sufficiently robust. As a result, the Commission determined that the proposed agreement could not be approved in its current form. The Commission made orders for the parties to return to the negotiating table to address the identified issues.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application for approval of the enterprise agreement be dismissed. The Commission directed the parties to engage in further negotiations to reach a revised agreement that met the standards of fairness and reasonableness. The decision underscored the importance of achieving a balance between the interests of employers and employees, and the need for industrial agreements to be equitable and just.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.