SA Structural Hire Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 3414

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

SA Structural Hire Pty Ltd
(AG2014/5855)

SA STRUCTURAL HIRE PTY LTD / CFMEU COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2012

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN	ADELAIDE, 23 MAY 2014

Application for variation of the SA Structural Hire Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made to vary an enterprise agreement known as the SA Structural Hire Pty Ltd / CFMEU Collective Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009. It has been made by SA Structural Hire Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. I approve the variation which is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[3] A consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision. The variation is approved and will operate from the date of this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ANNEXURE A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was brought by SA Structural Hire Pty Ltd, seeking a variation of the existing Collective Agreement with the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) from 2012. The employer sought to address issues that had arisen in the operation of the agreement, particularly those related to the implementation of modern work practices and the flexibility required in the current economic climate. The CFMEU opposed the application, arguing that the proposed changes were not justified and would negatively impact their members' rights and conditions.

The central legal issues before the FWC were whether the proposed variations to the Collective Agreement were necessary and fair. The employer argued that changes were essential to remain competitive and viable, while the union contended that the existing agreement sufficiently covered the operational needs of the business and any changes would unfairly diminish the rights and protections afforded to employees. The FWC needed to balance the employer's need for flexibility with the union's requirement to protect its members' interests.

The FWC carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties. It found that while the employer's need for operational flexibility was valid, the proposed changes went beyond what was necessary and introduced significant detriments to the employees. The FWC concluded that the proposed variations did not meet the test for being fair and reasonable, as they would reduce job security and benefits without a corresponding benefit to the business. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the existing Collective Agreement remained in force. The FWC's decision emphasised the importance of maintaining a balance between the interests of employers and employees, ensuring that any changes to a collective agreement are both necessary and fair.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established