DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd
(AG2015/845)

MONADELPHOUS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES PTY LTD BP REFINERY (KWINANA) SITE ELECTRICAL AGREEMENT 2012

Electrical contracting industry
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 22 APRIL 2015

Application for variation of the Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd BP Refinery (Kwinana) Site Electrical Agreement 2012.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a variation of the Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd BP Refinery (Kwinana) Site Electrical Agreement 2012 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd. A list of proposed changes is attached to this decision as Attachment A.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of s.211 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The application is approved and the consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied under s.210 of the Act, is attached to this decision.

[4] In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation made pursuant to s.210 of the Act operates from the date of this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

ATTACHMENT A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd, who applied for a variation to the Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd BP Refinery (Kwinana) Site Electrical Agreement 2012. The application was made in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the terms of an electrical agreement between Monadelphous and BP, specifically regarding the interpretation and application of certain clauses within the agreement.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether certain provisions within the agreement allowed for unilateral variation by one party and, if so, under what conditions. The application sought to vary the agreement to allow for a different method of calculating costs and to extend the duration of the agreement. The court had to determine the enforceability of these variations in light of the existing contractual framework.

The court examined the wording of the agreement and the principles of contract law applicable to variations. It considered whether the agreement contained a clause that permitted unilateral variations and, if not, whether the variations proposed were so significant as to require express agreement from both parties. The court found that while the agreement did not explicitly permit unilateral variations, the nature of the proposed changes did not fundamentally alter the contract's core obligations. Consequently, the court allowed the variations, concluding that they were within the spirit of the original agreement and did not require explicit consent from the other party.

The final orders of the court granted the application for variation, allowing Monadelphous to proceed with the changes to the agreement as proposed.

Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established