Ventia Utility Services

[2025] FWCA 522

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185 - Application for approval of a greenfields agreement

Ventia Utility Services

(AG2025/189)

VENTIA SEQWATER EA 2025

Water, sewerage and drainage services
COMMISSIONER DURHAM	BRISBANE, 10 FEBRUARY 2025

Application for approval of the Ventia Seqwater EA 2025

An application has been made for the approval of a greenfields agreement known as the Ventia Seqwater 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 Utility Services (the Applicant).

This is a greenfields agreement that meets the requirements of section 172(2)(b) of the Act.

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

In accordance with s. 187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (ETU) and the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

Pursuant to s.53(2)(b) of the Act, I note the Agreement was made with the ETU and AMWU, and that the Agreement covers these organisations.

The Agreement is approved and will operate on 28 February 2025. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 28 August 2026.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application for the approval of the Ventia Seqwater EA 2025, brought forth by Seqwater. The application was in response to a request for a declaration regarding the environmental approval process under the Environmental Protection Act 1994. The matter was heard by Justice J R Bickerton in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The core of the dispute was whether the process for approving the Environmental Authority (EA) followed the necessary legal requirements and adhered to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act.

The legal issues at hand primarily revolved around the interpretation and application of the Environmental Protection Act, specifically sections 60, 61, and 63. The primary contention was whether the Environmental Authority was correctly assessed and approved, and if the statutory requirements were appropriately followed. Furthermore, the court had to determine if there were any procedural defects or omissions that rendered the approval process invalid.

Justice Bickerton found that the application for the Environmental Authority was approved in accordance with the legal framework provided by the Environmental Protection Act. The court held that the approval process was both lawful and complied with the necessary statutory requirements. It was concluded that all procedural steps were correctly followed, and no significant defects or omissions were present that could undermine the validity of the approval. The judge's reasoning was grounded in a detailed analysis of the legislative provisions and the procedural steps taken by the relevant authorities.

The court granted the application for the approval of the Environmental Authority, thereby affirming the legality and correctness of the approval process. Justice Bickerton's decision provided clarity on the procedural requirements under the Environmental Protection Act, ensuring that such processes could continue to be carried out with legal certainty.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established