Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Thiess Pty Ltd
Citation: [2017] FCAFC 179
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 3
What happened
Thiess Pty Ltd sought approval of an enterprise agreement covering three employees transferred to work on pre-mobilisation activities for the Mount Pleasant Mine Project in late October 2016. The employees were transferred from the Brisbane-based Thiess Component Rebuild Centre and performed maintenance and inspection work to prepare equipment for the project. The agreement was made and voted on 29 November 2016. At the time of voting and approval application, Thiess had not been awarded the contract for the Mt Pleasant Mine Project; that occurred on 13 April 2017.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission's first instance decision dismissed the approval application on three grounds: (1) the employees voting were not covered by the agreement because they were not engaged on Mt Pleasant Mine Project work at the time of voting; (2) the group of employees was not fairly chosen; and (3) the agreement was not genuinely agreed to. The Full Bench quashed the Commissioner's decision and allowed the appeal on the first ground only, holding that pre-mobilisation work in anticipation of project commencement fell within the agreement's scope. However, the Full Bench failed to consider grounds 2 and 3. The Federal Court granted certiorari and mandamus to require the Full Bench to reconsider the grounds relating to fair selection and genuine agreement.
What it means for employers
Enterprise agreements must be made with employees who are genuinely covered by the agreement and fairly chosen. Pre-mobilisation or preparatory work may fall within a project-specific agreement's scope, but the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied the employee group was fairly chosen and genuinely agreed to the terms. Employers should ensure employees understand the scope of enterprise agreements before voting.
What it means for employees
When voting on enterprise agreements, the Applicant should ensure they understand whether they are truly covered and fairly represented in the bargaining. Small employee groups for specific projects require particular scrutiny to ensure the agreement was genuinely agreed to and the group was properly selected. Employees can challenge agreement approval through the Fair Work Commission.
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/2017/2017fcafc0179Want 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 →