Ugl Engineering Pty Ltd - [2025] FWCA 3111

[2025] FWCA 3111

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a greenfields agreement

Ugl Engineering Pty Ltd

(AG2025/2753)

UGL OFFSHORE MAINTENANCE GREENFIELDS ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2025

Oil and gas industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'KEEFFE	PERTH, 16 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for approval of the UGL Offshore Maintenance Greenfields Agreement 2025

UGL Engineering Pty Ltd (Applicant) has 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 Enterprise 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 (AMWU), the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) and the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU).

Approval of the Agreement is opposed by the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) on the grounds that the AMWU, the CEPU and the CFMEU (collectively “the Unions”) cannot represent the industrial interests of a majority of the employees who will be covered by the Agreement. The AWU has a further concern related to the public interest, being that in essence the Applicant has sought to avoid engaging with the principal union in the hydrocarbons industry – being the AWU – who have coverage of all workers in that industry. The AWU sought permission to be heard with respect to approval of the Agreement and the Applicant opposed such permission being granted. I requested submissions on the issue of the AWU being heard and having reviewed those submissions, I granted permission for the AWU to be heard. The relevant decision citation is [2025] FWC 2683.

Having granted permission for the AWU to be heard, I requested submissions from the Unions as to why they could represent the industrial interests of a majority of the employees who will be covered by the Agreement and submissions from the AWU on why this was not the case. In making an assessment of which employees would be covered by the Agreement I was guided by evidence provided by Mr Douglas Cochrane who is the Operations Manager for the Applicant. Consistent with my findings in UGL Pluto Upgrade Project Agreement [2024] FWC 1137 (Pluto) at [31]-[32], I am satisfied that the most reliable assessment of the classifications and number of employees in each classification likely to be engaged is provided by the Applicant itself.

In his evidence, Mr Cochrane states that the Agreement will be used to tender for work on the Woodside Scarborough Project Floating Platform Unit (FPU). Of significance is that this offshore facility has a limit of the number of persons – being 75 - who can be on board at any one time. It was Mr Cochrane’s further evidence that of the 75 persons, the maintenance contractors would be limited to a total of 15 persons. Consistent with this figure and the use of “back to back” rosters, Mr Cochrane expects…

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] FWCA 3111
Case: [2025] FWCA 3111
Decision Date: 16 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Ugl Engineering Pty Ltd sought approval for the UGL Offshore Maintenance Greenfields Agreement 2025. The agreement, which was the outcome of negotiations between the company and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, aimed to regulate employment conditions for workers in the offshore maintenance sector. The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether it was in the best interest of the employees.

The court examined whether the agreement was properly negotiated, if it complied with procedural fairness, and whether it provided for the proper representation of the employees' interests. The legal issues also included the validity of the agreement's provisions, particularly those concerning the rights of employees to be free from discrimination and to be protected against unjust dismissal. The court had to determine if the agreement contained the necessary good faith bargaining provisions and if it met the statutory requirements for an enterprise agreement.

The court concluded that the UGL Offshore Maintenance Greenfields Agreement 2025 was valid and met the statutory requirements for an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court found that the agreement was the result of good faith bargaining, that it complied with procedural fairness, and that it provided for the proper representation of the employees' interests. The court also determined that the agreement contained the necessary good faith bargaining provisions and that it met the statutory requirements for an enterprise agreement. The court was satisfied that the agreement provided for the fair and equitable treatment of employees, including protection against discrimination and unjust dismissal.

The final order of the court was that the UGL Offshore Maintenance Greenfields Agreement 2025 be approved as an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court directed that the agreement be registered with the Fair Work Commission, and that it would come into effect on the date of registration. The court also directed that the agreement be published on the Fair Work Commission's website, and that it be made available to all employees covered by the agreement.

Orders