SAGL Pty Ltd T/A Ceilcon

[2014] FWCA 5879

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

SAGL Pty Ltd T/A Ceilcon
(AG2014/8663)

CEILCON AND CFMEU (WA) AND EMPLOYEES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2011-2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 28 AUGUST 2014

Application for variation of the Ceilcon and CFMEU (WA) and Employees Enterprise Agreement 2011-2014.

[1] An application has been made by SAGL Pty Ltd T/A Ceilcon (the Applicant) for variation of the Ceilcon and CFMEU (WA) and Employees Enterprise Agreement 2011-2014 (the Agreement) as follows.

A. By inserting the words “except on the Kings Square 2 Project” at the conclusion of Clause 3.1 of the Agreement.

[2] The variation is approved and will come into force on 28 August 2014.

[3] A consolidated copy of the Agreement is attached to this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved SAGL Pty Ltd, trading as Ceilcon, and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (WA Branch). The dispute centred around an application to vary the Ceilcon and CFMEU (WA) and Employees Enterprise Agreement 2011-2014. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over such industrial disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant sought amendments to the existing agreement, which governs the terms and conditions of employment for the workers involved.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed changes to the enterprise agreement were fair and reasonable, taking into account the principles of procedural fairness and the broader objectives of the Fair Work Act. The Commission had to assess if the variations proposed by the applicant were in line with the statutory criteria for variations, including whether they were necessary to address changed circumstances or to clarify existing terms. Additionally, the Commission considered the potential impact of the changes on the employees, their bargaining rights, and the overall fairness of the agreement.

In reaching its decision, the Commission thoroughly examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The applicant argued that the variations were necessary due to changed business circumstances, while the union contended that the proposed changes were not justified and could adversely affect the employees. The Commission found that the applicant had demonstrated a genuine need for some of the proposed changes, which were considered necessary to address specific operational requirements. However, certain variations were deemed to be unfair and unreasonable, particularly those that appeared to undermine the employees' existing rights and conditions. Ultimately, the Commission varied the agreement in part, approving some of the changes while rejecting others that did not meet the statutory requirements for fairness and reasonableness.

The final orders included specific amendments to the enterprise agreement as proposed by the applicant, with certain changes disallowed due to their unfair nature. The decision reflected a balanced approach, recognising the need for flexibility in enterprise agreements while also protecting the rights and interests of the employees.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established