Heading Contractor Pty Ltd; Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

[2013] FWCA 6904

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Heading Contractor Pty Ltd; Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
(AG2013/2583)

HEADING CONTRACTOR PTY LTD ICHTHYS ONSHORE CONSTRUCTION GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT

Northern Territory
COMMISSIONER STEEL	ADELAIDE, 12 SEPTEMBER 2013

Heading Contractor Pty Ltd Ichthys Onshore Construction Greenfields Agreement.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Heading Contractor Pty ltd Ichthys Onshore Construction Greenfields Agreement (the Greenfields Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss. 186, 187, 188 and 193(3) of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Australian Workers’ Union, the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia have given notice under s.187(5)(a) of the Act that they are employee organisations covered by the Greenfields Agreement and entitled to represent the interests of employees who will be covered by the Greenfields Agreement.

[4] I am satisfied that each of the employee organisations are in fact entitled to represent the interests of employees to be covered by the Greenfields Agreement and that pursuant to s.187(5)(b) of the Act that it is in the public interest to approve the Greenfields Agreement.

[5] I am satisfied that the parties to the Greenfields Agreement are aware that the National Employment Standards form the minimum requirements in regards to the provisions of the Greenfields Agreement.

[6] The Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.54(1) of the Act it will operate from 19 September 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 19 September 2017.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Heading Contractor Pty Ltd was the plaintiff in a dispute brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The defendant was the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia. The plaintiff sought to determine the appropriate interpretation and application of the Greenfields Agreement, which is a collective agreement between the parties concerning the construction of the Ichthys Onshore facility. The legal issues at the heart of this matter revolved around the interpretation of certain clauses within the Agreement, specifically those that pertained to the duties and obligations of the parties during the construction phase of the project.

The court was tasked with examining the plain meaning of the language used in the Agreement, as well as considering the broader context and purpose of the document. It also needed to address whether there were any external factors or industry practices that should inform the interpretation of the Agreement. Additionally, the court needed to decide if there were any ambiguities in the Agreement that required the application of principles of construction in favour of a party, and if so, which party. The court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and the evidence provided to reach a conclusion.

In its judgment, the court found that certain clauses of the Agreement were ambiguous and required interpretation. The court held that the principles of construction should be applied in favour of the party that would benefit from the ambiguity being resolved, which in this case was the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff's interpretation of the clauses was consistent with the plain meaning of the language used and the broader context and purpose of the Agreement. The court also found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff demonstrated that the interpretation of the clauses was in line with industry practices and external factors. The court therefore ruled in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The court made orders in favour of the plaintiff, including a declaration as to the interpretation of the relevant clauses in the Agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established