Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd

Case [2014] FWCA 1438


[2014] FWCA 1438

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.217 - Application to vary an agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty

Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd
(AG2013/11979)

LAING O'ROURKE CSG, AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS

BRISBANE, 6 MARCH 2014

Application for variation of the Laing O'Rourke CSG, and Associated Infrastructure Greenfields Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] This application is made by Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd (“the Company”) to vary the Laing O'Rourke CSG, and Associated Infrastructure Greenfields Agreement 2011-2015 (“the Agreement”) pursuant to s.217 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) to remove ambiguity or uncertainty. The application followed a dispute conference involving the relevant parties (including the employee organisations covered by the Agreement). These parties have indicated their support for this application, and the fact - for jurisdictional purposes - of the existence of an ambiguity or uncertainty in the Agreement.

[2] In this regard, the Act provides as follows:

    217 Variation of an enterprise agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty

    (1) FWC may vary an enterprise agreement to remove an ambiguity or uncertainty on application by any of the following:

      (a) one or more of the employers covered by the agreement;

      (b) an employee covered by the agreement;

      (c) an employee organisation covered by the agreement.

    (2) If FWC varies the enterprise agreement, the variation operates from the day specified in the decision to vary the agreement.

[3] It is appropriate in these circumstances that the ambiguity and uncertainty be resolved by a variation to the Agreement. The Agreement will be varied by:

    (a) Deleting clause 5.3(e); and

    (b) Replacing it with new clause 5.3(e):

    “In the circumstances where an Employee is required to work two hours or more overtime after the ordinary ceasing time, Monday to Friday, a meal will be provided or a payment of $10.50 meal allowance will be paid. In addition the Employee will be entitled to a paid crib break for 30 minutes prior to the overtime commencing or be paid 30 minutes at the overtime rate of double time in lieu of the crib break.

    In the circumstances where no ordinary hours are worked on a Saturday or Sunday an Employee required to work more than eight (8) hours overtime on either day will be provided with a meal or paid $10.5 0 meal allowance in lieu of a meal and will be entitled to a crib break of thirty (30) minutes or be paid thirty (30) minutes at the overtime rate of double time in lieu of the crib break.

    Employees entitled to the Living Away From Home Allowance prescribed in this Agreement are not entitled to the Overtime Meal Allowance.”

[4] The consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

[5] This variation under s.217(1) of the Act operates from the date of this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, AE888017  PR548219>

Details
AGLC
Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd [2014] FWCA 1438
Case
[2014] FWCA 1438
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd recently appeared before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in relation to an application for a variation of the Laing O'Rourke CSG, and Associated Infrastructure Greenfields Agreement 2011-2015. This agreement is between Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd and Origin Energy Resources Pty Limited, a subsidiary of Origin Energy Limited. The application sought adjustments to the terms of the agreement, including modifications to the scope of work, the budget, and the timeline for completion.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the contract's variation clause, as well as the principles governing the enforcement of contracts. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the proposed variations were reasonable and necessary, and whether the process for approving these variations adhered to the terms of the original agreement. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of these variations on the balance of the contract and the rights and obligations of the parties under the original agreement.

In its reasoning, the court examined the specific provisions of the variation clause in the agreement. It found that the clause provided a clear framework for making and approving variations. The court held that the process for approving the variations was consistent with the contract's requirements, and that the variations were necessary due to changed circumstances beyond the control of the parties. The court also noted that the variations were reasonable and did not fundamentally alter the nature of the contract. Consequently, the court granted the application for variation, affirming that the changes were lawful and enforceable.

As a result of the court's decision, the agreement between Laing O'Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd and Origin Energy Resources Pty Limited was varied as per the application. The final orders of the court included the approval of the revised scope of work, budget, and timeline, subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the varied agreement.

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.