Rigforce Pty Ltd - [2022] FWCA 1165

[2022] FWCA 1165

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Rigforce Pty Ltd

(AG2022/881)

Rigforce Pty Ltd Western Australia and Northern Territory Offshore Construction Projects Greenfields Agreement 2020 - 2024

Oil and gas industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT	PERTH, 6 APRIL 2022

Application for approval of the Rigforce Pty Ltd Western Australia and Northern Territory Offshore Construction Projects Greenfields Agreement 2020 - 2024

An application has been made for approval of a greenfields agreement known as the Rigforce Pty Ltd Western Australia and Northern Territory Offshore Construction Projects Greenfields Agreement 2020 - 2024 (the Agreement). The application was made by Rigforce Pty Ltd (the Applicant/Rigforce) pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

This is a greenfields agreement that meets the requirements of s 172(2)(b) of the Act. For the following reasons, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss 186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. In accordance with s 187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU), Australian Workers Union (AWU), and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union (CEPU) are entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

Pursuant to s 53(2)(b) of the Act, I note the Agreement was made with the AMWU, AWU and CEPU, and that the Agreement covers these organisations.

The Applicant has drawn the Commission’s attention to an error in the name of the employer in the text of the Agreement. Clause 3 of the Agreement states that it shall be binding on the ‘Company’, the AMWU, AWU, and the CEPU, and relevant employees. ‘Company’ is defined in clause 3 of the Agreement as ‘McDermott Australia Pty Ltd’. The correct name of the employer in question is, in fact, Rigforce. The Applicant submitted that this was a simple and obvious mistake which does not pose an obstacle to the Agreement’s approval. I agree. The Form F19 application correctly identifies Rigforce as the employer of employees covered by the Agreement. The employer’s Form F20 statutory declaration, sworn by Mr Conor O’Brien, Managing Director of Rigforce, similarly identifies Rigforce as the employer.

It is clear that the reference to ‘McDermott Australia Pty Ltd’ in the text of the Agreement is a mistake, and that the intended reference was to Rigforce. In the circumstances, it can safely be inferred that the employees to be covered by the Agreement, understood it was one which covered them in their employment with their actual employer, Rigforce. The written text of the Agreement simply did not reflect the actual proposed agreement.[1]

It is very clear that the actual and only employer is Rigforce, and that the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rigforce Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] FWCA 1165
Decision Date: 6 APRIL 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Rigforce Pty Ltd, which sought approval for the Rigforce Pty Ltd Western Australia and Northern Territory Offshore Construction Projects Greenfields Agreement 2020-2024. This agreement pertains to offshore construction projects, and the approval was sought under the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed agreement complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and, in particular, whether it met the threshold for being an eligible agreement. The Commission needed to consider the scope of the agreement, its potential impact on the employees involved, and whether it adequately covered the terms and conditions of employment.

The Commission found that the agreement was comprehensive and covered all necessary aspects of employment, including wages, hours of work, leave, and dispute resolution mechanisms. It was deemed to be an eligible agreement as it provided for a fair and efficient resolution of workplace issues. The Commission approved the agreement, noting that it provided for appropriate terms and conditions that were fair and reasonable for the employees involved.

Following the approval, the Fair Work Commission issued an approval order for the Rigforce Pty Ltd Western Australia and Northern Territory Offshore Construction Projects Greenfields Agreement 2020-2024, allowing it to be registered and enforced. This decision ensures that the agreement will provide a stable and fair framework for the offshore construction projects undertaken by Rigforce Pty Ltd in the specified regions and time frame.

Orders