| [2025] FWCA 588 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement
Baker Hughes Australia Pty Limited T/A Baker Hughes Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2025/190)
BAKER HUGHES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD E-LINE AND SLICKLINE OFFSHORE ESSO BASS STRAIT AGREEMENT 2023
| Oil and gas industry | |
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT MILLHOUSE | MELBOURNE, 14 FEBRUARY 2025 |
Application for approval of the Baker Hughes Australia Pty Ltd E-Line and Slickline Offshore Esso Bass Strait Agreement 2023
An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Baker Hughes Australia Pty Ltd E-Line and Slickline Offshore Esso Bass Strait Agreement 2023 (Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). It has been made by Baker Hughes Australia Limited T/A Baker Hughes Australia Pty Ltd (Employer). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.
I am satisfied that each requirement of ss 186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. For the purposes of the better off overall test, I have had regard to each of the matters in s 193A(2)-(7).
Pursuant to s 205A(2) of the Act, the workplace delegates’ rights term prescribed by the Hydrocarbons Industry (Upstream) Award 2020 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.
The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) being a bargaining representative for the Agreement supports the approval of the Agreement and has given notice under s 183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s 201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the organisation.
The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s 54 of the Act will operate from 21 February 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 30 June 2028.
Variation
Concurrently with the approval application, the Employer also filed an amending application seeking a variation of the Agreement under s 218A of the Act. The s 218A amending application is said to have been made on the basis that the Agreement contained typographical errors when referencing ‘Schedule A’ rather than ‘Schedules A and B’ and when referencing the applicant’s name as ‘Baker Hughes Australia Pty Ltd Pty Limited’ rather than ‘Baker Hughes Australia Pty Limited’ in clause 3.1.
The employee bargaining representatives were provided with an opportunity to address the s 218A application. No submissions were made.
Section 218A of the Act was inserted by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs Better Pay) Act 2022 to provide a process for varying an enterprise agreement to “correct or amend an obvious error, defect or irregularity,” whether in substance or form. It provides as follows:
Variation of enterprise agreements to correct or amend errors, defects or irregularities
(1) The FWC may vary an enterprise agreement to correct or amend an obvious error, defect or irregularity (whether in substance or form).
(2) The FWC may vary an enterprise agreement under subsection (1):
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application by any of the following:(i) one or more of the employers covered by the agreement;
(ii) an employee covered by the agreement;
(iii) an employee organisation covered by the agreement.
(3) If the FWC varies an enterprise agreement under subsection (1), the variation operates from the day specified in the decision to vary the agreement
Before an enterprise agreement may be varied under s 218A of the Act, there must be satisfaction of the existence of an obvious error, defect or irregularity (whether in substance or form)
I am satisfied that the error in referencing ‘Schedule A’ rather than ‘Schedules A and B’ and in referring the applicant’s name in clause 3.1 of the Agreement are each obvious errors. I accept that these errors were made typographically in the drafting of the Agreement.
The exercise of the Commission’s discretion is directed to “correct or amend” the obvious error identified. I consider the errors identified are of a kind that may be corrected by varying the Agreement to amend the reference of “Schedule A” to “Schedules A and B” as well as to amend clause 3.1 to refer to “Baker Hughes Australia Pty Limited’ rather than ‘Baker Hughes Australia Pty Ltd Pty Limited.”
I consider that the corrections proposed by this application are necessary and appropriate to ensure that the Agreement accurately reflects what was clearly intended, and will provide certainty when referring to provisions of the Agreement. There are no grounds telling against the exercise of my discretion to vary the Agreement to correct the errors
Accordingly, the errors will be corrected in the manner sought and as specified in the order that follows. The order will operate from the date of this decision.
Order
Pursuant to s 218A of the Act, I order that the Agreement be varied to correct obvious errors as follows:
(1) By deleting “Schedule A” where it appears in the definition of “Minimum Base Salary,” “Job Title,” “Offshore Allowance,” and “Workshop Rates” in the Definition section on page 2 of the Agreement and replacing it with ‘Schedules A and B.”
(2) By deleting “Schedule A” and replacing it with “Schedules A and B” in clauses 4.3, 5.2, 6.2 and 8.10 of the Agreement.
(3) By deleting in clause 3.1 “Baker Hughes Australia Pty Ltd Pty Limited” and replacing it with “Baker Hughes Australia Pty Limited.”
The published Agreement will contain the corrections described in the above order.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<AE528040 PR784359>
- AGLC
- Baker Hughes Australia Pty Limited T/A Baker Hughes Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWCA 588
- Case
- [2025] FWCA 588
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act and whether it was appropriately made. Specifically, the Commission had to consider if the agreement was genuinely negotiated, free from coercion or pressure, and met the criteria for being a simple, fair, and efficient agreement. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess if the agreement provided for appropriate minimum terms and conditions, including those relating to remuneration, working hours, and leave entitlements.
In reaching its decision, the Commission examined the evidence presented regarding the negotiation process and the terms of the agreement. It concluded that the agreement was genuinely negotiated and met the legal standards set out in the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that the terms of the agreement were fair and efficient, and that it provided for appropriate minimum terms and conditions for the workers. Consequently, the Commission approved the Baker Hughes Australia Pty Ltd E-Line and Slickline Offshore Esso Bass Strait Agreement 2023.
The Fair Work Commission approved the agreement, which will now govern the employment conditions of the offshore workers in the Esso Bass Strait project. The decision highlights the importance of ensuring that enterprise agreements are genuinely negotiated and meet the statutory requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.