Communication, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union v Stanwell Corporation Ltd (No 2)
Citation: [2014] FCA 593
What happened
Multiple unions applied for civil penalties against Stanwell Corporation alleging breach of consultation obligations in enterprise agreements. Stanwell proposed bringing units 2 and 4 back into service at Tarong power station, which would result in major changes to workforce composition, hours of work, and skills required. The unions alleged that Stanwell failed to consult with employees and unions about preliminary decisions to bring the units back online, in breach of clause 2.11 of the Tarong Power Stations Enterprise Agreement 2012.
What was decided
Stanwell applied to strike out paragraphs 19-25 of the statement of claim on the grounds they were vague and did not properly plead material facts. The court granted the application in part. Paragraphs stating there were insufficient staff to operate the units constituted conclusions rather than material facts and were struck out. The unions had failed to plead specific facts demonstrating how Stanwell's decision was likely to have a significant effect on employees, instead merely asserting conclusions.
What it means for employers
Consultation obligations in enterprise agreements must be clearly understood. Unions bringing proceedings for breach must plead specific material facts showing how decisions significantly affect employees, not merely assert conclusions. An employer can require proper pleading of underlying factual claims.
What it means for employees
Enterprise agreements containing consultation clauses protect employees by requiring consultation when decisions have significant effects. However, the scope of consultation rights must be properly established through factual pleading showing the connection between decisions and workforce impact.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2014/2014fca0593Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →