Auriga Marine Pty Ltd

[2025] FWCA 3374

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Auriga Marine Pty Ltd

(AG2025/3308)

AURIGA MARINE ASTROLABE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2025

Maritime industry
COMMISSIONER LIM	PERTH, 7 OCTOBER 2025

Application for approval of the Auriga Marine Astrolabe Enterprise Agreement 2025

Auriga Marine Pty Ltd (the Applicant) has made an application for the approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Auriga Marine Astrolabe Enterprise Agreement 2025 (the Agreement). The application was made under s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

The title of the Agreement on the Notice of Employee Representational Rights (the NERR) is ‘Auriga Marine Astrolabe Enterprise Agreement 2024’ whilst the Agreement title in clause 1 is ‘Auriga Marine Astrolabe Enterprise Agreement 2025.’ Pursuant to s 188(5) of the Act, I am satisfied that the Agreement would have been genuinely agreed to but for the minor technical errors made in relation to the requirements set out in s 174(1A) of the Act. I am satisfied that the employees covered by the Agreement were not likely to have been disadvantaged by the errors. As a result, I am satisfied that the Agreement has been genuinely agreed within the meaning of s 188(5) of the Act.

On the basis of the material contained in the application and accompanying declarations, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss 186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

I note that the following clauses in the Agreement appear to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (the NES):

Termination – over 45: Clause 20.1 of the Agreement states that where the employer wishes to terminate an employee after the probation period, the employer will give four term weeks’ notice in writing or full payment in lieu. Although this may be more beneficial in some circumstances than the notice period provided for in s 117(3) of the Act, it may be less beneficial for employees aged over 45 who have completed at least 2 years of continuous service with the employer, as they may be entitled to up to 5 weeks’ notice of termination per s 117(3)(b) of the Act.

Abandonment – notice period not specified: Clause 20.4 of the Agreement provides an abandonment clause. This clause does not specifically provide that employees deemed to have abandoned their employment in accordance with this clause will be afforded their minimum notice of termination entitlement as per s 117(3) of the Act. Section 123 of the Act does not preclude an employee who has abandoned their employment from the entitlement to notice of termination provided by s 117 of the Act.

However, I am satisfied that under clause 8.3 of the Agreement, the more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.

The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union – The Maritime Union of Australia Division – Wester Australian Divisional Branch (the organisation), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s 183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s 201(2), and based on the declaration provided by the organisation, I note that the organisation is covered by the Agreement.

The Agreement was approved on 7 October 2025 and, in accordance with s 54, will operate from 14 October 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 7 October 2029.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Auriga Marine Pty Ltd was involved in a dispute over the approval of the Auriga Marine Astrolabe Enterprise Agreement 2025. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) was the tribunal that heard the matter. The dispute centred around whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant, Auriga Marine, argued that the agreement was fair and reasonable and should be approved. The respondents, represented by the Maritime Union of Australia, contended that the agreement did not meet the necessary criteria and should not be approved.

The key legal issues before the FWC were whether the agreement provided for minimum terms and conditions, and if it was made in good faith and covered all employees within its scope. The FWC had to consider whether the agreement was procedurally sound, ensuring that employees had a genuine opportunity to express their views. Additionally, the FWC needed to assess if the agreement was likely to have a beneficial effect on the employees covered by it.

In evaluating the application, the FWC considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. The FWC found that the agreement was procedurally sound and had been made in good faith. It was determined that the agreement provided for the minimum terms and conditions and was likely to have a beneficial effect on the employees. The FWC also concluded that the agreement covered all employees within its scope and was fair and reasonable. Consequently, the FWC approved the Auriga Marine Astrolabe Enterprise Agreement 2025.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established