DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

SuperBoom CE Pty Ltd
(AG2015/6227)

SUPERBOOM CE PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2015-2019

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER GREGORY	MELBOURNE, 2 DECEMBER 2015

Application for approval of the SuperBoom CE Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015-2019.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the SuperBoom CE Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2015-2019 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by SuperBoom CE Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

[2] 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.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 9 December 2015. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 1 December 2019.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SuperBoom CE Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of its Enterprise Agreement 2015-2019. The application was opposed by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), which argued that the agreement did not comply with certain provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was required to determine whether the agreement met the requirements for registration under the Act.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the agreement provided for the proper protection of employees' rights and entitlements. The CFMEU argued that the agreement failed to comply with section 234 of the Act, which mandates that an enterprise agreement must provide for the terms and conditions of employment. The CFMEU further argued that the agreement did not comply with section 233 of the Act, which requires that an agreement must not discriminate against employees on the basis of their union membership or activities.

After considering the submissions of both parties, the Commission found that the agreement did not comply with section 234 of the Act because it did not provide for the proper protection of employees' rights and entitlements. The Commission found that the agreement did not provide for minimum rates of pay, leave entitlements, and other key terms and conditions of employment. The Commission also found that the agreement did not comply with section 233 of the Act because it contained provisions that discriminated against employees on the basis of their union membership or activities. As a result, the Commission refused to approve the agreement.

The Commission's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements provide for the proper protection of employees' rights and entitlements. Employers and unions must carefully consider the requirements of the Act when negotiating and drafting agreements to avoid the risk of non-compliance and potential refusal of registration by the Commission.

SuperBoom CE Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established