• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The CFMEU sought an extension of time under s.111(1)(r). In support it filed a statutory declaration (Form R28) by a union officer (Mr Martin Kingham) and the employer filed a statutory declaration by Mr Graeme Townsend. The CFMEU's statutory declaration contained two names on its front sheet; the CFMEU later confirmed by letter (8 March 2002) that Martin Kingham was the signatory and the other name should be struck off.

A hearing was listed (notification sent 8 February 2002; hearing 14 February 2002). At the hearing the CFMEU explained the reasons for delay: difficulties in assembling the parties, delays obtaining the company's statutory declaration, and delays in obtaining the relevant union officer's signature on the agreement and declaration. The CFMEU also stated there had been no substantive change in the workforce since approval and had taken steps to reduce future delays [PN120-121, PN139].

Separately, the CFMEU had lodged a s.170XF application seeking designation of the relevant award for Part VIE purposes. However, the statutory declarations by the parties identified the relevant awards as the National Building and Construction Industry Award [N022] and/or the National Joinery and Building Trades Products Award [N0183]. The CFMEU explained that the National Building and Construction Industry Award 2000 was the core award and that it was CFMEU practice to note both awards to cover on-site and off-site work [PN16]. Following receipt of Part 7 information in the statutory declarations, the CFMEU formally withdrew its s.170XF application (letter dated 8 March 2002).

There was also a potential issue about clause 30 (a union encouragement clause). The CFMEU provided an undertaking that it would not use the clause in a way that breached the freedom of association provisions in Part XA of the Act [PN165-PN188].

On these bases, Deputy President Hamilton concluded that the statutory requirements for certification were met, granted the extension of time, and certified the agreement under s.170LT. The agreement was declared to come into force on 1 December 1999 and to remain in force until 30 November 2002.

Why the court decided this way

The decision turns on two procedural and evidential points:

1. Extension of time under s.111(1)(r) cures a late lodgement under s.170LM(2):

   • s.170LM(2) prescribes that an application must be lodged no later than 21 days after the approval date (the text of s.170LM(2) is reproduced in the decision). The CFMEU missed that deadline.
   • The CFMEU sought relief under s.111(1)(r) and explained the reasons for the delay: administrative difficulties in assembling parties and obtaining statutory declarations, delay in obtaining officer signatures, and steps to prevent recurrence. The CFMEU also pointed to the absence of any substantive change in the workforce since approval [PN120-121, PN139].
   • The Deputy President accepted those explanations as sufficient exercise of discretion to extend time, enabling the Commission to consider certification substantively.

2. Statutory declarations, undertakings, and withdrawal of procedural applications satisfied certification prerequisites:

   • Both parties lodged statutory declarations in the required Form R28 stating the agreement met statutory requirements and identifying the relevant awards as the National Building and Construction Industry Award and/or the National Joinery and Building Trades Products Award.
   • The CFMEU explained the dual-award notation as a practical measure to cover on-site and off-site construction work [PN16].
   • With the awards identified in the declarations, the CFMEU withdrew its s.170XF application to designate an award (8 March 2002). The withdrawal and the declarations together were accepted as resolving any issue about the relevant award(s).
   • The potential conflict with Part XA (freedom of association) arising from clause 30 was addressed by the CFMEU's express undertaking not to use the clause in a way that breaches Part XA. The Deputy President accepted this undertaking as addressing the concern sufficiently for certification.

In sum, the Commission exercised procedural discretion to remedy a timing breach, accepted evidentiary declarations and a party undertaking, and proceeded to certify the agreement.

Before and after state of the law

Before this decision, the statutory scheme in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 required that applications for certification of enterprise agreements be lodged within specified time limits (s.170LM(2)) and allowed the Commission to determine the relevant award(s) for Part VIE via s.170XF. The Commission also possessed a general power under s.111 to grant extensions of time in appropriate circumstances.

This decision illustrates the Commission's practical approach to timing and procedural defaults. After this decision (that is, as an administrative posture within AIRC decisions), two points are clear:

• The Commission will exercise its s.111 discretion to permit late lodgement where there is a plausible administrative explanation, absence of substantive workforce change, and demonstrable steps to prevent future delay. The Deputy President explicitly relied on those matters when granting the extension.
• The Commission will accept properly framed statutory declarations from parties identifying relevant award coverage, and the presence of such declarations can render unnecessary a s.170XF designation application; withdrawal of the s.170XF application will be accepted when the Part 7 information in declarations clarifies the situation.

The decision thus confirms that certification outcomes can turn on pragmatic assessment of procedural explanations and the sufficiency of parties' statutory statements and undertakings.

Key passages with plain-English translation

1. Quotation (from the listing notice):

   • "'The purpose of this hearing is to deal with an application by the CFMEU which asks the Commission to certify an enterprise agreement ... Once an agreement is certified it becomes enforceable under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and prevails over an award or order of this Commission to the extent of any inconsistency with the award or order.'"
   • Plain English: The notice explains why the hearing takes place, to decide whether the agreement should become legally enforceable, and that if certified the agreement will override inconsistent awards or Commission orders.

2. Quotation (statutory timing rule reproduced):

   • "'The application must be made no later than 21 days after: (a) if it is made in accordance with section 170LJ - the day on which it is approved as mentioned in subsection 170LJ(2) ...'"
   • Plain English: The law requires an application for certification to be lodged within 21 days after the workforce has approved the agreement, unless the Commission grants an extension.

3. Court's concluding statement:

   • "'I am satisfied on the basis of the statutory declarations, and the submissions of the CFMEU, that all the statutory requirements for certification are met, and on that basis I certify the agreement under s.170LT of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.'"
   • Plain English: After considering the evidence and explanations, the Deputy President decided the agreement met the statutory requirements and therefore granted certification.

4. Practical administrative correction:

   • The CFMEU's declaration bore two names; by letter the union confirmed the correct signatory (Martin Kingham) and had the extraneous name struck off.
   • Plain English: A clerical error in the declaration was corrected by a written confirmation, and the Commission treated that as sufficient fix.

5. Undertaking on clause 30:

   • The CFMEU gave a commitment that clause 30 (a union encouragement clause) would not be used so as to breach freedom-of-association protections in Part XA [PN165-PN188].
   • Plain English: The union promised it would not use the clause in a way that forced, coerced, or interfered with employees' freedom to join or not join unions; the Commission accepted that promise as enough to address any Part XA concern.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision will be useful to practitioners in these kinds of fact patterns:

• An enterprise agreement has been validly approved by a majority of employees, but the application for certification is lodged after the 21-day statutory window in s.170LM(2). If the delay is short and attributable to administrative difficulties (assembling parties, obtaining statutory declarations, obtaining officer signatures), this decision supports an argument for an extension under s.111(1)(r).
• The parties have filed statutory declarations (Form R28) that identify the relevant award(s). Where declarations identify the award(s) and contain the Part 7 information required, a separate s.170XF award designation application may be unnecessary or can be withdrawn; the Commission may accept the declarations as settling the question of relevant award coverage.
• A union encouragement clause or similar provision raises potential freedom-of-association issues under Part XA. An explicit, credible undertaking from the union that it will not use the clause in a manner that breaches Part XA may be accepted by the Commission and allow certification to proceed.
• Minor clerical errors in statutory forms (for example, two names on a declaration) can be rectified and are not necessarily fatal to certification if corrected and explained.

Practitioners should note the weight this decision gives to candid explanations, documentary declarations from parties, and undertakings addressing statutory concerns.

How later courts have treated it

This decision is an administrative determination by the AIRC (Deputy President Hamilton) addressing certification and procedural discretion. The decision itself records the Commission's approach to late lodgement, the evidential sufficiency of statutory declarations, and acceptance of undertakings on freedom-of-association issues. The text does not record subsequent judicial or tribunal treatment of this particular decision.

Practical implication: within the AIRC and in related industrial practice, this decision exemplifies a pragmatic, evidence-based exercise of discretion under s.111 permitting certification despite timing non-compliance when explanations are credible, workforce conditions unchanged, and corrective steps taken. Lawyers and advisers should, however, check subsequent tribunal or court decisions and updated legislative frameworks (including any successor statutes or amended provisions) for later authoritative guidance or changed approaches.

Still-open questions

Several legal and practical questions remain open or are not definitively resolved by this brief certification decision:

1. Standards for extension of time:

   • The decision accepts administrative difficulties and a short delay as sufficient for an extension. It does not articulate a definitive or structured test for when s.111 should be exercised. What quantum and quality of evidence is required for longer or more contested delays remains unspecified.

2. Weight of undertakings addressing Part XA:

   • The Commission accepted the CFMEU's undertaking that clause 30 would not be used to breach Part XA. The decision does not explain how the Commission would monitor or enforce such an undertaking, nor does it set out consequences if the undertaking were breached. The enforcement mechanics and evidentiary threshold for breaching undertakings remain open.

3. Sufficiency of statutory declarations and interplay with s.170XF:

   • The Deputy President accepted the parties' Form R28 declarations naming relevant awards and allowed withdrawal of a s.170XF application. There is no detailed discussion about the relative probative value of declarations vis-a-vis an adversarial s.170XF hearing; where there is dispute about award coverage, the Commission's approach may differ.

4. Effect of clerical errors in statutory forms:

   • The decision treats a two-name clerical error as remediable by letter. However, the decision does not adopt a formal test for when a procedural or clerical defect is incurable. The boundary between curable clerical error and fatal defect is therefore not exhaustively defined.

5. Broader precedential weight:

   • This is a single Commission decision addressing procedural discretion. Its persuasive weight in other contexts depends on similarity of facts and on whether later decisions or higher courts adopt a narrower or broader approach to extensions and undertakings.

Practitioners should treat this decision as a practical example of the Commission's flexible approach to procedural non-compliance, but must verify current law, any legislative changes, and subsequent authoritative decisions before relying on it in contested or borderline cases.