Terminals Pty Ltd Trading AS Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage & Handling - [2025] FWCA 1661

[2025] FWCA 1661

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Terminals Pty Ltd Trading AS Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage & Handling

(AG2025/671)

QUANTEM BULK LIQUID STORAGE AND HANDLING REGIONAL SITES ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2024

Oil and gas industry
COMMISSIONER FOX	MELBOURNE, 29 MAY 2025

Application for approval of the Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage and Handling Regional Sites Enterprise Agreement 2024.

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage and Handling Regional Sites Enterprise Agreement 2024 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). It has been made by Terminals Pty Ltd T/A Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage & Handling (Quantem). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

On 24 March 2025, the United Workers’ Union (UWU) filed a Form F18 with the Commission, in which it noted that it opposed the approval of the Agreement due to the following four issues:[1]

The agreement provides for a base salary which incorporates all allowances that would otherwise be payable in the award.
The agreement requires operators to work an unlimited number of shift extensions and overtime shifts in certain circumstances.
The salary rate may not be sufficient to compensate for hours worked and allowances payable under the award.
Some employees may not be better off overall on the agreement than under the award.

In its Form F18, the UWU further advised that it disagreed with Quantem’s statement that employees under the Agreement will be better off overall, as:[2]

Clause 7.13 states that the Annualised Salary in the agreement includes compensation for the work of the Employees role including “reasonable additional hours (including shipping and handover meeting)”.
Employees could be required to work every Saturday and Sunday up to 12.5 hours each day for the life of the agreement without receiving any additional payment. The lack of definition of ‘reasonable’ puts the onus of contesting ‘reasonable’ on to individual employees in every single instance it occurs.
Employees could be required to work an additional 4.5 hours each day for the life of the agreement without receiving any additional payment. The lack of definition of ‘reasonable’ puts the onus of contesting ‘reasonable’ on to individual employees in every single instance it occurs.
The agreement could require employees to work every weekend as part of their standard weekly roster, or permanent nightshift as part of their standard weekly roster, without any additional payment.
Any of the circumstances listed in paragraphs 2-5 could result in employees not being

better off overall.
…

In my initial correspondence to the parties on 21 March 2025, I also noted a number of issues I had identified with the Agreement and requested Quantem address these by providing further material.

Following receipt of submissions and undertakings, I conducted two Conferences and a Case Management Conference with the parties – the first on 26 March 2025, the second on 10 April 2025 and…

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 Terminals Pty Ltd Trading AS Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage & H... 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: [2025] FWCA 1661
Decision Date: 29 MAY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a request by Terminals Pty Ltd, trading as Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage & Handling, for approval of the Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage and Handling Regional Sites Enterprise Agreement 2024. The applicant sought to have the agreement approved as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The legal dispute centred on whether the agreement met the requirements of the Act, specifically whether it contained the necessary minimum terms and conditions and whether it was fair and appropriate for the employees covered by the agreement.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the agreement provided for the minimum entitlements required by the Fair Work Act and whether it was fair and appropriate for the employees. The court examined the content of the agreement to determine if it met the statutory requirements and considered the views of the Fair Work Commission, which had previously assessed the agreement. The court also evaluated whether the agreement provided for fair and appropriate terms and conditions for the employees and whether it adhered to the principles of good faith bargaining and procedural fairness.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the agreement's provisions against the benchmarks set by the Fair Work Act. The court noted that the agreement contained all the required minimum terms and conditions as stipulated by the Act. Additionally, the court found that the agreement was fair and appropriate for the employees, taking into account the comprehensive assessment by the Fair Work Commission and the absence of any significant objections from the parties involved. The court was satisfied that the agreement reflected a fair and reasonable outcome for the employees and that the process leading to its creation adhered to the principles of good faith bargaining.

Consequently, the court approved the Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage and Handling Regional Sites Enterprise Agreement 2024, recognising it as a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act. The approval signified that the agreement met all statutory requirements and was fair and appropriate for the employees it covered.

Orders