South Coast Equipment Pty Limited; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

[2013] FWCA 9470

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

South Coast Equipment Pty Limited; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(AG2013/11390)

SOUTH COAST EQUIPMENT PTY. LTD PLANT OPERATOR CFMEU ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN	SYDNEY, 3 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the South Coast Equipment Pty. Ltd Plant Operator CFMEU Enterprise Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known asthe

South Coast Equipment Pty. Ltd Plant Operator CFMEU Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by South Coast Equipment Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union NSW Construction and General Branch (the Union) have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they wish to be covered by the Agreement. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days after the issuing of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 10 December 2015.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Fair Work Commission was asked to consider the approval of an enterprise agreement between South Coast Equipment Pty Limited and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The matter was brought before the Commission by the union, which sought approval of the agreement under section 233 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer contested the application, asserting various objections to the agreement's provisions.

The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement complied with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and whether it met the "better off overall test" (BOOT). The employer argued that the agreement did not comply with certain procedural requirements, including the requirement to provide employees with information about the agreement and to allow them a reasonable opportunity to discuss it. The employer also contended that the agreement failed to meet the BOOT, as it did not provide employees with a sufficiently generous wage increase.

After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the agreement did comply with the procedural requirements of the Act, including the requirement to provide employees with information about the agreement and to allow them a reasonable opportunity to discuss it. The Commission also found that the agreement met the BOOT, as it provided employees with a wage increase that was better than the safety net provided by the Fair Work Act. The Commission approved the agreement, subject to certain modifications to address the employer's concerns about the procedural fairness of the agreement. The employer was ordered to implement the agreement as modified by the Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established