Ugl Engineering Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 2683

[2025] FWC 2683

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Application for approval of an enterprise agreement

Ugl Engineering Pty Ltd

(AG2025/2753)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’KEEFFE

PERTH, 9 SEPTEMBER 2025

AWU seeking permission to be heard on approval of an agreement – AWU not a bargaining representative – permission to be heard granted.

On 15 August 2025, UGL Engineering Pty Ltd (the Applicant) (UGL) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for approval of the UGL Offshore Maintenance Greenfields Agreement 2025 (the Agreement). The Agreement was made with the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union Western Australian Branch (the AMWU), the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia - Electrical, Energy and Services Division - Western Australian Divisional Branch (the CEPU) and the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union - Construction and General Division, Western Australia Divisional Branch (the CFMEU). The approval application was initially allocated to Deputy President Colman.

On 20 August 2025, the Australian Workers’ Union (the AWU) contacted the FWC noting it may wish to be heard with respect to approval of the Agreement and seeking a copy of the application and other relevant materials. Redacted versions of those documents were provided on 22 August 2025. On 28 August 2025 the AWU wrote to the FWC advising that it wished to be heard as it had concerns that the AMWU, the CEPU and the CFMEU (collectively “the Unions”) did not have the capacity between them to represent the industrial interests of a majority of workers to be covered by the Agreement. At this point the file was moved to my Chambers.

I convened a conference of the parties on 5 September 2025 to discuss a process for dealing with the AWU’s application to be heard. Submissions were sought from all parties with respect to whether the AWU should be given permission to be heard pursuant to s.590 of the Act. The AWU and the Applicant made submissions, but “the Unions” did not.

Submissions

The AWU submitted that it has broad constitutional coverage of work performed in or in connection with the hydrocarbons sector, including employees performing maintenance work, brownfields modification and upgrade work, and major shutdowns on offshore hydrocarbons facilities Australia wide. As such, the AWU submits it has an interest in this matter because the AWU is the principal union in the hydrocarbons sector and has the capacity to represent the industrial interests of all workers performing work covered by the Agreement.

Further, the AWU submits it has over 5,000 members in the hydrocarbons sector and as such there is a high likelihood that, should the Commission determine that the Agreement meets the requirements of the Act for approval, AWU members are likely to be employed under the terms and conditions of the Agreement in the future.

Drawing upon case authority from Hart v Coles Supermarkets[1],…

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.

Continue reading Ugl Engineering Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ugl Engineering Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2683
Case: [2025] FWC 2683
Decision Date: 9 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Ugl Engineering Pty Ltd and the Australian Workers' Union (AWU). The AWU sought permission to be heard on the approval of an agreement. The AWU argued it was a relevant party to the dispute, but Ugl Engineering contended the AWU was not a recognised bargaining representative and thus had no standing. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue was whether the AWU was entitled to be heard on the approval of an agreement when it was not a bargaining representative. The AWU argued that its membership included employees affected by the agreement and it had a legitimate interest in the outcome. Ugl Engineering maintained that only recognised bargaining representatives could seek to be heard on such matters.

The Commission considered the AWU's interest and the fact that the agreement affected its members. Despite the AWU not being a bargaining representative, the Commission found that the AWU had a legitimate interest in the proceedings due to its members being affected by the agreement. The Commission granted the AWU permission to be heard on the approval of the agreement, recognising the AWU's interest in the matter.

The Fair Work Commission granted the AWU permission to be heard on the approval of the agreement, acknowledging the AWU's legitimate interest in the outcome despite it not being a recognised bargaining representative. This decision allowed the AWU to participate in the proceedings concerning the agreement's approval.

Orders