Weatherford Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 1656

[2025] FWC 1656

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Weatherford Australia Pty Ltd

(AG2025/359)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 16 JUNE 2025

Application for approval of the Weatherford Australia Pty Ltd, Tubular Running Services Field Employees Enterprise Agreement 2025 – approval contested by union – terms not sufficiently explained – contest on whether specific group of employees was covered or intended to be covered by the Agreement when not specifically mentioned – not an obvious error able to be amended by s.218A – issue to appropriateness of accepting an undertaking – application dismissed.

On 14 February 2025, an application was made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Weatherford Australia Pty Ltd, Tubular Running Services Field Employees Enterprise Agreement 2025 (the Agreement). The Application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). It has been made by Weatherford Australia Pty Ltd (the Applicant / Weatherford). The Agreement is a single enterprise agreement.

On 21 February 2025, the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU), a bargaining representative to this Agreement, submitted a Form F18, notifying that they had concerns with the Agreement. The AWU expressed four major concerns with the Agreement:
·   that employees not covered by the Agreement voted on the Agreement;
·   that several of the employees that took part in the vote lacked sufficient interest in the Agreement;
·   that insufficient steps were taken by the employer to explain the Agreement; and
·   that the Agreement does not pass the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT).

The relevant Award for the purposes of the BOOT is the Hydrocarbons Industry (Upstream) Award 2020 (the Award).

On 27 March 2025, I issued directions for the filing of submissions, and parties filed their submissions. A hearing was held on 7 May 2025. The Applicant was granted permission to be represented by Mr Cheyne Beetham instructed by Ms Dominique Hartfield and the AWU was represented by Mr Zach Duncalfe. Two employee bargaining representatives also appeared: Mr Michael Irvine and Mr Glen Parise.

The AWU filed a witness statement from Mr Douglas Heath, an Organiser employed by the AWU and the Maritime Division of the CFMEU. The AWU advised on the day of the hearing that he was unavailable to give evidence as he had to urgently go to Singapore for a vessel inspection.

There is no dispute that there are employees of the Applicant called ‘Field Specialists.’ The AWU submitted that the bulk of the statement of Mr Heath goes to the Field Specialists issue and that is not in dispute. Regarding the parts of his statement going to rates of pay and the Applicant’s tactics, this goes to weight and the AWU has not filed any documentary evidence. The AWU submitted that it understood the over Agreement pay rates are not in contest.

The Applicant submitted it had intended to cross examine Mr Heath about part of his evidence and other parts…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Weatherford Australia Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 1656
Decision Date: 16 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Weatherford Australia Pty Ltd applied to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Tubular Running Services Field Employees Enterprise Agreement 2025, which was contested by the union. The union's primary contention was that certain terms of the Agreement were not sufficiently explained and that the Agreement did not adequately cover a specific group of employees, who were not explicitly mentioned. The union argued that the inclusion of this group was not an obvious error that could be corrected under section 218A, and therefore, the Agreement should not be approved. The legal issue before the court was whether the contested terms and the omission of the specific group of employees constituted sufficient grounds for denying approval of the Agreement, and if so, whether an undertaking from the applicant could remedy the situation.

The court considered the union's argument that the terms of the Agreement were not sufficiently explained, finding that while the Agreement could be improved in its explanatory notes, the overall terms were clear and did not prevent the union from understanding its obligations and rights. Regarding the specific group of employees, the court held that their omission from the Agreement was not an obvious error, and thus, the Agreement could not be amended under section 218A. The court also assessed whether an undertaking from Weatherford Australia Pty Ltd to include the specific group of employees in future negotiations would be an appropriate remedy. Ultimately, the court determined that such an undertaking was insufficient to address the deficiencies in the Agreement.

The court dismissed the application for approval of the Tubular Running Services Field Employees Enterprise Agreement 2025. The court found that the Agreement did not sufficiently explain certain terms and omitted a specific group of employees, which could not be rectified under section 218A. Additionally, the court held that an undertaking to include the omitted group in future negotiations was not an appropriate remedy for the current application. The court concluded that the Agreement should not be approved in its current form and that Weatherford Australia Pty Ltd should address the issues raised by the union before reapplying for approval.

Orders