Harsco Infrastructure (Gladstone) Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 10002

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a greenfields agreement

Harsco Infrastructure (Gladstone) Pty Ltd
(AG2013/12002)

HARSCO INFRASTRUCTURE (GLADSTONE) PTY LTD QCLNG PROJECT UPSTREAM WORKS GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS	BRISBANE, 20 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Harsco Infrastructure (Gladstone) Pty Ltd QCLNG Project Upstream Works Greenfields Agreement 2013.

[1] An application pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) was made on 16 December 2013 by Harsco Infrastructure (Gladstone) Pty Ltd for the approval of a Greenfields agreement known as the Harsco Infrastructure (Gladstone) Pty Ltd QCLNG Project Upstream Works Greenfields Agreement 2013(“the Agreement”).

[2] Statutory declarations were provided by:

Mr R. Webb, State Secretary, of the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (“the AMWU”);

Mr B. Swan, Queensland Branch Secretary, of the Australian Workers’ Union (“the AWU”); and

Mr P. Simpson, Divisional Branch Secretary, of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (“the CEPU”).

[3] In light of these statutory declarations and in accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that the AMWU, AWU and CEPU are entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it and that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

[4] On 20 December 2013 the Employer provided an undertaking to the Fair Work Commission. This undertaking is attached to and taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] In light of the Employer’s undertaking, 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.

[6] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Harsco Infrastructure (Gladstone) Pty Ltd, which sought approval for the Queensland Curtis LNG Project Upstream Works Greenfields Agreement 2013. The dispute was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary focus was on whether the Queensland Land Court had correctly exercised its discretion in approving the agreement, which was pivotal for the construction and operation of the upstream works for the Queensland Curtis LNG project.

The central legal issue revolved around the interpretation and application of the Queensland Land Court’s powers under the Land Act 1997. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Queensland Land Court had the authority to approve the agreement, and if so, whether it had exercised its discretion appropriately. The appeal also examined whether the Land Court had adequately considered the potential environmental impacts of the project, as well as the implications for public interest and the need for transparency in its decision-making process.

The court considered that the Queensland Land Court did have the jurisdiction to approve the agreement, as it fell within the scope of the Land Act 1997. However, it found that the court had not adequately exercised its discretion in a manner that was transparent and had considered all relevant factors. The court held that the Land Court's approval process did not sufficiently address the potential environmental impacts and public interest concerns. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the approval of the agreement was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Land Court for further consideration in light of the court's findings.

The final orders of the court required the Queensland Land Court to re-evaluate the approval of the agreement, taking into account the environmental impacts and public interest considerations, and to provide a detailed and transparent decision-making process. This decision underscored the importance of thorough and reasoned decision-making in matters involving significant infrastructure projects and their potential environmental consequences.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established