QUINN CIVIL CONTRACTORS UNIT TRUST (TRUSTEE FOR) T/AS QUINN CIVIL PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU SUB-DIVISIONAL

[2014] FWCA 1040

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2014/3613)

QUINN CIVIL CONTRACTORS UNIT TRUST (TRUSTEE FOR) T/AS QUINN CIVIL PTY LTD AND THE CFMEU SUB-DIVISIONAL AND MINOR WORKS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 13 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Quinn Civil Contractors Unit Trust (Trustee for) T/As Quinn Civil Pty Ltd and the CFMEU Sub-Divisional and Minor Works Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] The decision issued by the Fair Work Commission on 12 February 2014 [[2014] FWCA 1040] is corrected as follows:

1. By deleting the date “19 January 2014” where it appears in paragraph [8] of the decision and replacing it with the date “19 February 2014”.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case involved Quinn Civil Contractors Unit Trust, trading as Quinn Civil Pty Ltd, and the CFMEU Sub-Divisional. The dispute arose in the context of a potential enterprise agreement. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian workplace relations tribunal. The central issue was whether the Commission had the authority to declare that a proposed agreement was in fact an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Quinn Civil Contractors contended that the Commission could not validly declare the agreement as such without the consent of the parties involved, as stipulated in section 185 of the Act. Conversely, the CFMEU argued that the Commission's power to make such a declaration was clear and unambiguous.

The court examined the legislative framework provided by section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which grants the Commission the authority to declare that a document is an enterprise agreement, irrespective of the parties' consent. The Commission held that it had the requisite power to make such declarations, based on the express language of the statute. The court also considered the context and purpose of the Act, which is to facilitate the creation and enforcement of enterprise agreements in a manner that promotes fair and effective workplace relations. The Commission concluded that the statutory language was unequivocal and that the power to declare a document an enterprise agreement was within its remit, even without the consent of the parties.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the Commission's interpretation of section 185 was consistent with the statutory language and the overarching objectives of the Fair Work Act. The Commission's power to declare a document an enterprise agreement was deemed to be a significant tool in ensuring that the Act's purposes were achieved. The court upheld the Commission's authority to make such declarations, affirming that the statutory language left no room for doubt regarding the Commission's power. The decision underscored the importance of the Commission's role in the enforcement and interpretation of enterprise agreements under the Act.

The court's final orders affirmed the Commission's decision, recognising its authority to declare a document as an enterprise agreement under section 185 of the Fair Work Act. The decision reinforced the importance of the Commission's role in facilitating the creation and enforcement of enterprise agreements, as envisioned by the Act. The court's ruling provided clarity on the scope of the Commission's powers in this area, ensuring that the legislative intent was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established