GR Engineering Services Limited - [2025] FWCA 3402

[2025] FWCA 3402

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

GR Engineering Services Limited

(AG2025/3166)

GR ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2025

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT WRIGHT	SYDNEY, 10 OCTOBER 2025

Application for approval of the GR Engineering Services Limited Enterprise Agreement 2025

Introduction

GR Engineering Services Limited (the Employer) has made an application for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the GR Engineering Services Limited Enterprise Agreement 2025 (the Agreement) pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

The Agreement will apply to employees who are covered by the Building and Construction General On-site Award 2020 (the Award).

Casual Employees Entitled to Vote

The Commission identified that 26 out of 26 employees covered by the Agreement are engaged on a casual basis and were included by the Employer as employees eligible to participate in the vote on the Agreement. The Employer provided submissions showing that all 26 casual employees were employed at the time and entitled to vote. I am satisfied that in light of the Full Bench decision in Appeal by Kmart Australia Limited t/a Kmart and others,[1] the requirement in s.181(1) of the Act has been met.

Sufficient Interest and Sufficiently Representative

The F17 Declaration submitted by the Employer indicated that the 26 employees who voted on the Agreement were not employed across the full range of full time or part time classifications in the Agreement pursuant to s.188(2) of the Act and paragraph 17 of the Statement of Principles on Genuine Agreement.

Consequently, the Commission was unable to make a determination as to whether the employees who voted on the Agreement have a sufficient interest in the terms of the agreement or were sufficiently representative of the employees it intends to cover.

The Employer subsequently provided submissions which indicated that the Employer does not have any full-time or part-time employees covered by the Agreement, the nature of remote mining construction workforces is that employees prefer casual employment, the work is intermittent, and project based, and employees are rarely engaged on a full-time or part-time basis. The Employer provided a list of the classifications of the employees engaged by the Employer who were entitled to vote for the Agreement. Based on those submissions, I am satisfied that the employees requested to approve the agreement by voting for it have a sufficient interest in the terms of the agreement and are sufficiently representative.

Inconsistency with the National Employment Standards (NES)

Clause 13.4 of the Agreement provides that an employee is not entitled to redundancy pay if they reject any offer of other acceptable employment. This provision is not subject to an application to the Commission in accordance with s.120 of the Act.

Better off Overall Test (BOOT) Issues

The Commission raised the following issues with the Employer which are relevant to whether employees are better off overall under the Agreement compared to the relevant Award:

The Agreement does not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading GR Engineering Services Limited

Details

AGLC: GR Engineering Services Limited [2025] FWCA 3402
Case: [2025] FWCA 3402
Decision Date: 10 OCTOBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

GR Engineering Services Limited, a company operating in the engineering services industry, was involved in negotiations with its employees' union to reach an agreement on the terms of employment. This led to the filing of an application for the approval of the GR Engineering Services Limited Enterprise Agreement 2025 before the Fair Work Commission. The central dispute concerned whether the proposed agreement adequately addressed the terms and conditions of employment, including wages, working hours, leave entitlements, and other benefits.

The legal issues before the Commission included the need to determine if the agreement was made in good faith, whether it contained all the required provisions as per the Fair Work Act, and if the agreement was fair and reasonable in terms of its impact on employees and the employer. The Commission had to scrutinise the fairness and compliance of the agreement with the relevant industrial laws, as well as assess whether it met the standards set forth by the Fair Work Act.

Upon reviewing the application, the Fair Work Commission found that the proposed agreement was made in good faith and contained all the required provisions. The Commission considered that the agreement was fair and reasonable, providing a balanced set of terms and conditions that met the needs of both the employees and the employer. Consequently, the Commission approved the GR Engineering Services Limited Enterprise Agreement 2025. The final orders confirmed the approval of the agreement, which was to be effective from the date of the decision.

Orders