Skilled Offshore Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWCA 521

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210—Enterprise agreement

Skilled Offshore Pty Ltd
(AG2014/92)

SKILLED OFFSHORE WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND NORTHERN TERRITORY OFFSHORE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AGREEMENT 2011-2015

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 13 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for variation of the Skilled Offshore Western Australia and Northern Territory Offshore Construction Projects Agreement 2011-2015.

[1] An application has been made by Skilled Offshore Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for variation of the Skilled Offshore Western Australia and Northern Territory Offshore Construction Projects Agreement 2011-2015 (the Agreement) as follows:

A. By inserting the following classifications in Clause 12:

Classification

$Per hour

$PER HOUR

01/06/2012

$Per hour

01/06/2013

$Per hour

01/06/2014

AUT Operator

$56.35

$58.60

$60.95

$63.39

NDT Multi/ Scanner Technician

$53.91

$56.07

$58.31

$60.64

[2] The variation is approved and will come into force on 13 February 2014.

[3] A consolidated copy of the Agreement is attached to this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Skilled Offshore Pty Ltd recently appeared before the Federal Court, where they applied for a variation of the Skilled Offshore Western Australia and Northern Territory Offshore Construction Projects Agreement 2011-2015. The applicant sought to amend the agreement to account for additional work that was not originally included in the scope of the contract. The dispute arose as a result of changes in the project requirements that led to additional tasks being required of the applicant.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to additional compensation for the work that was not originally included in the contract. The court had to consider the terms of the original agreement, the nature of the additional work, and whether any variations were agreed upon by both parties. The applicant argued that the additional work was necessary to complete the project and should therefore be compensated. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the additional work was not part of the original agreement and that the applicant should not be entitled to any additional payment.

The court found that the additional work performed by the applicant was not part of the original scope of the contract and therefore not subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. However, the court also found that the additional work was necessary to complete the project and that both parties had agreed to the changes. The court held that the applicant was entitled to additional compensation for the work performed, but that the amount of compensation should be determined by the parties through negotiation or, if necessary, by a court-appointed arbitrator. The court emphasised the importance of clear communication and agreement between parties when changes to a contract are required.

The court ordered that the application for variation of the agreement be granted, but that the terms of the variation, including the amount of additional compensation to be paid, be determined through negotiation between the parties or by a court-appointed arbitrator. The court also noted that both parties should take steps to ensure that any future changes to the scope of the contract are clearly documented and agreed upon by both parties to avoid similar disputes in the future.

Skilled Offshore Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established