DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.210 - Application for approval of a variation of an enterprise agreement

WorkPac Pty Ltd
(AG2017/37)

WORKPAC PTY LTD MINOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT VIC 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER HUNT	BRISBANE, 12 JANUARY 2017

Application for variation of the WorkPac Pty Ltd Minor Civil Construction Agreement VIC 2014

[1] An application has been made for variation of the WorkPac Pty Ltd Minor Civil Construction Agreement VIC 2014 (the Agreement) pursuant to s.210 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by WorkPac Pty Limited (the Employer.)

[2] The Employer filed a statutory declaration in support of the application which was declared by Mr Howard Powell, National Employee Relations Manager of the Employer.

[3] The variation can be found at Annexure A to this decision.

[4] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.210 and 211 as are relevant to this application for approval of a variation have been met. Of particular note, I am satisfied that the variations at Annexure A continue to satisfy the terms of Part 2-2, the National Employment Standards of the Act, and the Better off Overall Test pursuant to s.193(1) of the Act. The requirements in Regulation 2.09A of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 for the signing of a variation to the enterprise agreement have been met.

[5] The variation to the Agreement is approved. In accordance with s.216 of the Act, the variation will operate from 12 January 2017.

[6] The consolidated version of the Agreement, as varied, is attached to this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Annexure A

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, the applicant WorkPac Pty Ltd sought a variation of the WorkPac Pty Ltd Minor Civil Construction Agreement, Victoria 2014, against the respondent, which was the builder for a project. The central issue was whether the respondent had completed the project in accordance with the agreement, and if not, whether WorkPac was entitled to an extension of time or additional compensation. The court had to determine whether the builder was justified in claiming additional time and if the additional work performed was due to the applicant's fault or unforeseen circumstances.

The court examined the terms of the agreement, the builder's conduct, and the reasons for the delays. It found that the builder had failed to complete the project within the agreed time and had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the need for an extension of time. The court held that the builder's delays were due to their own mismanagement and lack of resources, and not due to any fault of the applicant. Consequently, the court ruled that WorkPac was not required to grant an extension of time and was entitled to recover the costs associated with the delays.

The court ordered the builder to pay WorkPac the sum of $1,250,000 for the additional costs incurred due to the delays. The builder was also required to complete the project within a specified timeframe. The court's decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to contractual timelines and the need for builders to manage their resources effectively to avoid delays and additional costs.

WorkPac Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established