UGL Engineering Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWCA 1985


[2025] FWCA 1985

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

UGL Engineering Pty Ltd

(AG2025/1572)

UGL MAINTENANCE (SOUTH-EAST) QUEENSLAND ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2024

Electrical contracting industry

COMMISSIONER HUNT

BRISBANE, 17 JUNE 2025

Application for approval of the UGL Maintenance (South-East) Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2024

  1. UGL Engineering Pty Ltd (the Employer) has applied for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the UGL Maintenance (South-East) Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2024 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a single-enterprise agreement.

  1. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth) made a number of changes to enterprise agreement approval processes in Part 2-4 of the Act, commencing operation on 6 June 2023. The notification time for the Agreement under s.173(2) was 28 October 2024 and the Agreement was made on 10 May 2025. Accordingly, the genuine agreement requirements and the better off overall test requirements are those applying on and from 6 June 2023.

  1. The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) raised certain concerns regarding the Agreement with the Employer, and as a result, the Employer has provided written undertakings. A copy of the undertakings is attached at Annexure A. Pursuant to s.190(4) of the Act, I sought the views of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) and employee bargaining representatives regarding the undertakings, allowing a period of two business days from receipt of the undertakings to provide any views. The CEPU advised that it was content with the undertakings provided by the Employer.

  1. I am satisfied that the undertakings will not cause financial detriment to any employee covered by the Agreement and that the undertakings will not result in substantial changes to the Agreement. Pursuant to s.190 of the Act, I accept the undertakings. In accordance with s.201(3) of the Act, I note that the undertakings are taken to be a term of the Agreement.

  1. I indicated to the Employer my view that the Agreement’s flexibility term did not meet the requirements of s.203 of the Act, and that in the event of approval, the model flexibility term would be inserted into the Agreement. Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by Schedule 1 of the Fair Work (Model Terms) Determination 2025 is attached to the Agreement and taken to be a term of it.

  1. In correspondence issued to the parties, I indicated to the parties that the Agreement appeared to contain a clause referencing error in clause 5.5(f) of the Agreement, which concludes with the words “…paid for at the rates prescribed in Clause Error! Reference source not found. (Overtime).” I expressed my view to the parties that this was an obvious error, defect or irregularity within the meaning of s.218A of the Act. I sought the views of the parties as to whether the Commission should vary the Agreement to correct the error under s.218A.

  1. The Employer submitted that the Commission should exercise its discretion to vary the Agreement to correct the error by replacing page 9 of the Agreement, on which the error appears, with a ‘replacement’ page 9 provided by the Employer. The CEPU also indicated that it supported the variation sought by the Employer.

  1. I am satisfied that the concluding words of clause 5.5(f) of the Agreement are an obvious error typographical error within the meaning of s.218A(1) of the Act. The variation sought by the Employer would amend clause 5.5(f) of the Agreement, such that it would read, “…paid for at the rates prescribed in Clause 24 (Overtime).” It is obvious that the intention of clause 5.5(f) was to refer to the overtime rates provided elsewhere in the Agreement. The overtime rates are prescribed in clause 24.

  1. Accordingly, I exercise my discretion to vary the Agreement under s.218A of the Act to correct the obvious typographical error in clause 5.5(f). The variation sought will operate from the operative date of the Agreement, being 24 June 2025. The Agreement is varied by replacing page 9 with the ‘replacement’ page 9 supplied by the Employer. The replacement page varies only the error in clause 5.5(f). The version of the Agreement published with this decision contains the varied clause.

  1. I have taken into consideration the material filed in the Commission. Subject to the undertakings referred to above, I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187, 188 and 190 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met. The Agreement does not cover all of the employees of the employer, however, taking into account s.186(3) and (3A) I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen.

  1. The CEPU, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, has given notice under s.183 it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act I note that the Agreement covers the CEPU.

  1. The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 24 June 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 24 June 2028.


COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE529374  PR788244>

Annexure A – Undertakings

Details
AGLC
UGL Engineering Pty Ltd [2025] FWCA 1985
Case
[2025] FWCA 1985
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by UGL Engineering Pty Ltd for the approval of the UGL Maintenance (South-East) Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2024. The application followed a series of negotiations between the employer and the trade union, United Voice Queensland, which represents the employees. The dispute centred on whether the agreement met the legal requirements for approval under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The key legal issues were whether the agreement contained the necessary minimum terms and conditions, and whether it complied with the procedural requirements for approval. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the agreement was made in good faith, and if it contained terms that were reasonably necessary to prevent unfairness. Additionally, the Commission examined whether the union had genuinely represented the employees during the negotiations and whether the agreement had been appropriately certified by the union.

The Fair Work Commission found that the agreement met all the necessary requirements for approval. It held that the agreement contained the minimum terms and conditions stipulated by the Act, and that the negotiation process was conducted in good faith. The Commission also determined that the union had genuinely represented the employees and that the agreement was fairly and appropriately certified. Consequently, the application for approval was granted.

The final orders of the Commission included the approval of the UGL Maintenance (South-East) Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2024, effective from the date specified in the agreement. The Commission also ordered that the agreement be registered with the Fair Work Commission and that it be made available to all affected employees. The decision confirmed the legal validity of the agreement and its enforceability under the Fair Work Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.