DP World (Fremantle) Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union
What happened
DP World (Fremantle) Ltd proposed relocating quay crane drivers from the crane cabin to a remote desk, allowing them to operate cranes using joysticks and driver assist features. This project, known as the Remote Quay Crane Project (RQC), aims to improve efficiency but raised concerns about job security and adherence to the DP World Fremantle Enterprise Agreement 2024. The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (MUA) argued that the changes triggered provisions in Appendix 4 of the agreement related to 'significant change to the mode of operation,' particularly concerning automation. DP World contended these provisions didn't apply.
What was decided
The Federal Court declared that the reference to ‘a significant change to the mode of operation’ in Appendix 4 of the Enterprise Agreement is limited to changes involving automation. The court found that DP World’s proposed remote quay crane operations, even when implemented, would not constitute automation. Justice Banks-Smith granted declaratory relief clarifying this interpretation of the agreement. This decision means DP World doesn't need to follow the processes outlined in Appendix 4 for implementing the RQC project.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully consider how changes to operations are defined within enterprise agreements, particularly regarding automation clauses. The court’s interpretation highlights that not all operational changes trigger specific agreement provisions; it must involve automation. Employers need to ensure clear communication with employees and unions about proposed changes and their impact.
What it means for employees
Employees should review enterprise agreements to understand the processes triggered by different types of operational changes. While this decision means certain protections may not apply in this specific case, understanding contractual obligations remains crucial for safeguarding job security and working conditions.
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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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.
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.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.