Nilsen (WA) Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWCA 9283

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Nilsen (WA) Pty Ltd
(AG2013/10148)

NILSEN (WA) PTY LTD WHEATSTONE PROJECT AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 5 DECEMBER 2013

Application for approval of the Nilsen (WA) Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Nilsen (WA) Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Nilsen (WA) Pty Ltd. 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 is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 12 December 2013. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 5 December 2017.

COMMISSIONER

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

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013, the applicant, Nilsen (WA) Pty Ltd, sought approval of the agreement from the Federal Court. The agreement was between Nilsen (WA) Pty Ltd, an engineering and construction company, and the Wheatstone Project, which involves the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas facility. The Wheatstone Project is a joint venture between two companies, one of which is a foreign entity. The dispute centred on whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to approve the agreement, and if so, whether it met the necessary criteria for approval.

The court had to decide whether it had the jurisdiction to approve the agreement and if the agreement met the criteria set out in the relevant legislation. The court also had to consider whether the agreement complied with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Act 2010 and whether it was in the public interest. The court had to consider whether the agreement would result in substantial benefits to the Australian economy and whether the agreement would facilitate the development of Australia's resources.

The court found that it had jurisdiction to approve the agreement and that the agreement met the necessary criteria. The court found that the agreement would result in substantial benefits to the Australian economy, including the creation of jobs and the development of Australia's resources. The court also found that the agreement would not result in any substantial detriment to competition in any relevant market. The court concluded that the agreement was in the public interest and approved the agreement. The court found that the agreement was fair and reasonable and that it would not have an adverse effect on the public interest.

The final orders of the court were that the Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013 be approved, and that the applicant be granted leave to apply for an order that the agreement be approved. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the proceeding.

Nilsen (WA) Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established