Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Mechanical Maintenance Solutions Pty Ltd
Citation: [2022] FCAFC 15
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 5
What happened
Mechanical Maintenance Solutions applied to the Fair Work Commission to approve the MMS Latrobe Valley Enterprise Agreement 2018, which would replace two existing greenfields agreements. Five employees were covered. the Respondent's consultant explained the agreement to employees verbally but not in writing and did not directly explain all material differences between the new agreement and the existing agreements. The Commission approved the agreement. Three unions applied for judicial review, arguing the Commission erred in finding that 'all reasonable steps' had been taken to explain the agreement as required by s 180(5) of the Fair Work Act.
What was decided
A Full Court of the Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review and quashed the Commission's approval decision. The court found the Commission erred by not identifying a specific deficiency: there was no evidence that material and significant differences between the new agreement and existing agreements had been explained to employees. The explanations given did not satisfy the statutory requirement.
What it means for employers
When seeking to approve a new enterprise agreement, employers must ensure employees receive detailed written explanations of all material differences between the new agreement and existing agreements. Verbal explanations alone may not satisfy statutory requirements.
What it means for employees
You have the right to detailed explanations of how a proposed enterprise agreement differs from existing agreements before being asked to approve it. These explanations should be provided in writing and should address all material differences.
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/2022/2022fcafc0015Want 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