Ventia Australia Pty Ltd

[2025] FWCA 2961

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Ventia Australia Pty Ltd

(AG2025/2601)

VENTIA AUSTRALIA SA POWER EA 2025

Electrical contracting industry
COMMISSIONER ROGERS	ADELAIDE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for approval of the Ventia Australia SA Power EA 2025

An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Ventia Australia SA Power EA 2025 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Ventia Australia Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

I am satisfied that each requirement of ss186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

Pursuant to s.205A(2) of the Act, the Workplace Delegates’ Rights term in Clause 26A of the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2020 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

I note that the following clauses in the Agreement appear to be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (the NES):

Personal/carer’s leave: Clause 47 of the Agreement is silent on part time employees’ entitlements regarding personal/carer’s leave.
Annual leave: Clause 46.1 states that employees are entitled to 4 weeks leave accrued based on ordinary hours worked. Accordingly, it appears that if an employee works a portion of the year at part time hours, then converts to full time and takes annual leave, it may result in them getting less than 4 weeks leave.

Noting clause 5.2 of the Agreement, I am satisfied that the more beneficial entitlements of the NES in the Act will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.

The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) lodged a Form F18 statutory declaration giving notice under s.183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note the Agreement covers the CEPU.

The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act from 9 September 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 31 December 2027.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, Ventia Australia Pty Ltd sought approval for a draft Enterprise Agreement (EA) under the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made by the company against the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU). The dispute centred around the terms and conditions of the proposed EA, which aimed to replace the existing agreement and govern the employment conditions for a group of employees. The central issue for the court was whether the draft EA met the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act for approval, particularly in terms of its coverage of employees, its compliance with the "better off overall test", and its alignment with the principles of good faith bargaining.

The court examined the arguments from both parties regarding the negotiation process and the content of the EA. Ventia argued that the EA was the product of good faith bargaining and met all statutory requirements, while the AMWU contended that the EA did not adequately protect employee interests and failed to comply with certain provisions of the Act. The court considered the evidence provided by both parties, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence, to assess the validity of the claims. Ultimately, the court determined that the EA was the product of good faith bargaining and met the statutory requirements for approval. The court found that the EA provided employees with adequate protections and was better off overall when compared to the existing agreement.

The court granted approval for the EA, finding that it complied with the statutory requirements and was the product of good faith bargaining. The EA was deemed to be in the best interests of the employees and provided them with adequate protections. The court found that the bargaining process was conducted in good faith and that the EA met the "better off overall test" as it provided employees with better terms and conditions compared to the existing agreement. The court also noted that the EA aligned with the principles of good faith bargaining as required by the Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established