ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – approval – undertakings – ss.185, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – appeal – Full Bench – at first instance the Commission approved the CSRP Enterprise Agreement 2016 (the Agreement) after accepting undertakings proffered by respondent – appellant submitted three grounds of appeal – firstly, the Commission erred in being satisfied the Agreement was genuinely agreed to by employees covered by it – secondly, the Commission erred in being satisfied the terms of the Agreement did not contravene s.55 of the Fair Work Act – thirdly, the Commission erred in being satisfied the Agreement did not contain any unlawful terms – whether appellant had sufficient interest and connection to issue to be able to bring appeal – appellant was not a bargaining representative in relation to the Agreement and did not have a member who was employed by respondent when the Agreement was made – appellant contended it was aggrieved by decision because it had an interest beyond that of an ordinary member of the public and eligibility coverage under its rules – respondent submitted appellant did not have sufficient interest and connection to bring appeal because it did not show actual or apprehended impingement of its legal rights as result of first instance decision – Full Bench found appellant had requisite interest in first instance decision – CEPU v Main People applied – respondent’s challenge to appellant’s standing to bring appeal rejected – appellant’s appeal grounds considered – Full Bench not persuaded Commission at first instance erred in being satisfied the Agreement was genuinely agreed to – not persuaded that uncertainty or questionable legal efficacy in relation to term of an agreement is sufficient basis to doubt whether an agreement was genuinely agreed to – found there was sufficient information in respondent’s statutory declaration to support Commission’s finding of being satisfied the Agreement was genuinely agreed to – first ground of appeal rejected – appellant contended three provisions of the Agreement contravened s.55 – Full Bench found clause 5.5 of the Agreement would have effect of excluding an employee’s entitlement to be ‘paid annual leave’ and could exclude other NES entitlements – found clause 7.5 of the Agreement had the effect of excluding operation of ss.114(1) and (3) – found third paragraph of clause 8.1 of the Agreement was a term not permitted by s.55(4) – held clause was detrimental to employees because it denied employees full benefit of s.88 – clause did not contain one of the three requirements of permitted cashing out term as set out in s.93(2) – appellant contended clause 14 of the Agreement contained unlawful terms – Full Bench rejected this ground of appeal – Full Bench concluded appellant had made good the second ground of its appeal – permission to appeal granted – appeal upheld – decision to approve the Agreement quashed – respondent allowed 14 days from date of decision to provide any written undertaking it proposed. Appeal by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union against decision of Roe C of 9 December 2016 [[2016] FWCA 8835] Re: CSRP P/L
…
