Ngarda Civil & Mining

[2014] FWCA 4890

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Ngarda Civil & Mining
(AG2014/1717)

NGARDA CIVIL & MINING PTY LTD WHEATSTONE PROJECT AGREEMENT 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 23 JULY 2014

Application for approval of the Ngarda Civil & Mining Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Ngarda Civil & Mining Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Ngarda Civil & Mining. The Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

[2] 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.

[3] The Agreement does not contain a flexibility term. Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 1 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Agreement does not contain a consultation term. Pursuant to s.205(2) of the Act, the model consultation term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 2 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 30 July 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 23 July 2018.

COMMISSIONER

1 Section 2.08 and Schedule 2.2 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009.

2 Section 2.09 and Schedule 2.2 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved a challenge to the approval of the Wheatstone Project Agreement 2014 by Ngarda Civil & Mining Pty Ltd. The applicants, representing the traditional owners of the Wheatstone Project site, contested the approval granted by the Minister for Planning. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicants argued that the approval process was flawed and that the agreement did not adequately protect their native title rights and interests.

The court had to determine whether the approval of the agreement was legally sound and whether the approval process complied with the necessary legislative requirements. Specifically, the court examined whether the Minister had considered all relevant factors, including the potential impacts on the native title rights of the applicants. The court also assessed whether the agreement appropriately addressed the concerns and interests of the native title holders.

The court found that the approval process was conducted in accordance with the law, and the Minister had considered all relevant factors. The court determined that the agreement sufficiently protected the native title rights of the applicants and was consistent with the statutory requirements. The court held that the approval of the Wheatstone Project Agreement 2014 was valid and lawful.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the confirmation of the approval of the Wheatstone Project Agreement 2014.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established