Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v John Holland Pty Ltd
Citation: [2015] FCAFC 16
What happened
John Holland Pty Ltd (construction and engineering company) made an enterprise agreement with three employees working on the new children's hospital project in Perth in January 2012. The agreement was expressed to cover all employees performing building or civil construction work in Western Australia within specified job classifications, though only the three initial employees were then employed. The agreement contained ten classification bands and potentially applied across Western Australia, subject to future site-specific agreements. The three employees voted in favour on 13 February 2012.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission's Full Bench initially rejected approval of the agreement under s.186(3) and (3A), finding concerns about the group of employees covered. the Respondent appealed to the Federal Court. The Full Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Full Bench's approach. The court confirmed that an enterprise agreement can be expressed to cover a broader group of employees than those who actually voted, provided the statutory requirements are met and the agreement is properly structured.
What it means for employers
Employers can structure enterprise agreements to cover employees beyond the initial voting group by clearly expressing the intended coverage and job classifications. Agreements can apply to future employees or wider categories provided they meet statutory coverage requirements. The agreement's language determining who is 'covered' is distinct from who actually votes.
What it means for employees
Enterprise agreements negotiated by a small bargaining group can extend to cover a much larger class of employees. All employees within specified classifications and locations become bound even if they did not participate in voting. This provides broader protective coverage but also means employees must accept terms negotiated by their representatives.
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/full/2015/2015fcafc0016Want 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. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99
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