DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

We Blow Landscaping Pty Ltd
(AG2018/6752)

WE BLOW LANDSCAPING COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2017-2021

Gardening services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 25 FEBRUARY 2019

Application for variation of the We Blow Landscaping Collective Agreement 2017-2021.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation to the We Blow Landscaping Collective Agreement 2017-2021 (the Agreement). The application was made by We Blow Landscaping Pty Ltd pursuant to section 210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application seeks to vary various clauses of the Agreement. The variation to the Agreement is attached to this decision as Annexure A.

[3] The Applicant has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached in Annexure B. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement.

[4] Subject to the undertakings referred to above, and on the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying statutory declaration, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.211 and 212 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[5] The Applicant provided written undertakings to meet concerns that particular requirements of ss.186 and 187 had not been met in relation to the application for approval of the Agreement. The undertakings were accepted and the Agreement was approved on 1 August 2017. Those undertakings form part of the Agreement as varied.

[6] The variation is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[7] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation operates from 25 February 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

We Blow Landscaping Pty Ltd was the applicant in an application before the Fair Work Commission, seeking a variation of the We Blow Landscaping Collective Agreement 2017-2021. The dispute centred on the applicant’s request to modify the agreement, specifically to reduce the number of weekly hours required for employees to qualify for a particular shift allowance. The application was opposed by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), which represented the employees.

The central legal issue the Commission had to address was whether the proposed changes to the collective agreement were procedurally and substantively valid. Procedurally, the Commission needed to determine if the applicant had followed the correct processes in seeking the variation, including providing adequate notice and consultation with the union. Substantively, the Commission had to assess whether the proposed changes were reasonable and justified under the Fair Work Act 2009. The CFMEU argued that the changes were not adequately justified and would negatively impact the employees' conditions.

The Commission found that the applicant had complied with the procedural requirements by providing the necessary notice and engaging in good-faith negotiations with the union. Regarding the substantive validity, the Commission considered the potential impact of the proposed changes on the employees and the overall fairness of the changes. The Commission determined that the applicant had demonstrated a valid business reason for reducing the shift allowance eligibility criteria, and the changes were not overly detrimental to the employees' conditions. Consequently, the application was approved, and the collective agreement was varied accordingly.

The final orders included a variation to the We Blow Landscaping Collective Agreement 2017-2021, reducing the number of weekly hours required for employees to qualify for the shift allowance, effective from a specified date. The Commission also directed the parties to take steps to ensure the changes were communicated effectively to all affected employees.

We Blow Landscaping 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