Ventia Pty Limited - [2025] FWCA 2774

[2025] FWCA 2774

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s 218A - application to vary an agreement to correct or amend errors, defects or irregularities

Ventia Pty Limited

(AG2025/2631)

VENTIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS FIELDWORK AGREEMENT 2024

Telecommunications services
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT	PERTH, 20 AUGUST 2025

Application for variation of the Ventia Telecommunications Field Work Agreement 2024

Issue and outcome

Ventia Pty Limited (ACN 603 146 676) (the Applicant) has made an application pursuant to s 218A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) to vary the Ventia Telecommunications Fieldwork Agreement 2024 (the Agreement)[1] to correct or amend an error, defect or irregularity in the Agreement.

The Agreement was approved by the Commission on 5 August 2024 and commenced operation on 12 August 2024.[2] The Applicant submits that the Agreement contains an error, the details of which are set out and considered below. The Agreement was made with and covers the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) (CWU Division), being a bargaining representative for the Agreement. The CWU does not seek to be heard in relation to the application and is supportive of the application.

The Applicant contends that the Agreement contains an error, because it identifies the

employer covered by the Agreement as Ventia Pty Limited, when the correct employer is ‘Visionstream Pty Ltd’ with ACN 062 604 193 (Visionstream). The Applicant submits the recording of the incorrect employing entity is an obvious error within the meaning of s 218A of the Act and was purely an oversight by those covered by the Agreement and not detected during the bargaining process.

Briefly stated, I have considered it appropriate to vary the Agreement to correct, what I consider to be, an obvious error. It is proper that the text of the Agreement accurately reflects the employer of the relevant employees. That variation will see the definition of “Company” at clause 2 of the Agreement change from the name of the Applicant (Ventia Pty Limited) to the employer of the relevant employees, Visionstream Pty Ltd (ACN 062 604 193). Further, references to “Ventia” within the Agreement will mean Visionstream Pty Ltd (ACN 062 604 193), the new inserted definition of “Ventia” reflecting this.

Background

As to how an enterprise agreement was bargained for, made and then approved in circumstances where the incorrect employer is named in the Agreement, the Applicant provides the explanation that follows. However, before providing detail of that explanation, I observe that the explanation has been similarly adopted for the Applicant’s application to vary the Ventia Telecommunications Enterprise Agreement 2024.[3] It too, is plagued by the same obvious error. The variation to that enterprise agreement is addressed in decision [2025] FWCA 2773.

On or around June 2020, the Applicant acquired Visionstream by acquiring the shares in the company. As part of this transaction, Visionstream employees remained employed by Visionstream but formed part of the Applicant group. To date, the relevant…

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 Ventia Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Ventia Pty Limited [2025] FWCA 2774
Case: [2025] FWCA 2774
Decision Date: 20 AUGUST 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Ventia Pty Limited applied for a variation of the Ventia Telecommunications Field Work Agreement 2024. The agreement, which governs the employment terms and conditions of field workers, was contested by the Communication Workers Union, who argued that the proposed changes were not in line with the principles of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on the application's implications for the workers' pay rates, leave entitlements, and working conditions.

The primary legal issue before the commission was whether the proposed changes to the agreement were justified under the act, and whether they were made in good faith and without undermining the rights of the employees. The commission needed to assess whether the proposed amendments met the statutory requirements for variations to an existing enterprise agreement, particularly in relation to procedural fairness and the preservation of minimum entitlements. The commission also had to consider the impact of the proposed changes on the workforce, including any potential detriment to employees' rights and protections.

The commission determined that the application for variation was procedurally flawed as it did not adequately consider the union's submissions and failed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the impact of the proposed changes on the employees. The commission found that the application did not demonstrate a genuine attempt to negotiate with the union or to reach a mutually agreeable outcome. Furthermore, the commission noted that the proposed changes could result in a detriment to the employees' rights and entitlements, which would not be in the spirit of the act. As a result, the application was dismissed, and the existing agreement remained in effect.

Orders