Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Ors v Queensland Rail and Anor

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning the interpretation of a certified agreement under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The appellants, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and other unions, appealed a decision of a single judge. The respondents were Queensland Rail and the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union. The dispute centred on whether Queensland Rail was obliged to pay certain allowances to employees who were members of the appellant unions, but who were not members of the respondent union, under the terms of the certified agreement.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the certified agreement conferred rights or benefits on employees who were members of the appellant unions, even though those employees were not members of the respondent union, which was the sole applicant for the agreement. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the agreement's provisions regarding allowances were intended to apply to all employees covered by the agreement's scope, or only to members of the respondent union. This involved an analysis of the language of the agreement and the relevant provisions of the *Fair Work Act*.

The Full Court held that the certified agreement did not confer rights or benefits on employees who were not members of the respondent union. Keane J, delivering the judgment of the Court, reasoned that the agreement was made between Queensland Rail and the respondent union, and its terms were to be understood in that context. The Court found that the language of the agreement, particularly clauses relating to the application of the agreement and the payment of allowances, indicated an intention to benefit only members of the respondent union. The Court applied principles of contractual interpretation, emphasizing that the plain meaning of the words used in the agreement, read in its entirety, was paramount. The appeal was dismissed.