Application by Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWCA 1916
What happened
Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd sought approval for a new enterprise agreement, the 'Queensland and Northern Territory Staff Enterprise Agreement 2025'. The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) contested both the scope of employees covered by the agreement and whether it was genuinely agreed to. Holcim argued the employees were geographically distinct and that electronic communication was standard practice. The agreement covers a disparate group across 61 sites, with approximately two-thirds participating in an electronic vote. Some employees are over 45 years old.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission approved the enterprise agreement. The AWU raised concerns about whether the scope of employees covered was fairly chosen and if the agreement was genuinely agreed to. The Deputy President found that the group of employees was geographically distinct, satisfying the requirements for a fair scope. They also concluded that the agreement was genuinely agreed to, noting employee participation in an electronic vote and the provision of information sessions. The Commission noted clause 18.7 may be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES) but clarified that NES entitlements would prevail where there's conflict.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure any proposed enterprise agreements clearly define the scope of employees covered, considering geographical and operational distinctions. When communicating agreement details electronically, employers need to consider the technological literacy of their workforce and provide alternative formats if necessary. Regularly review communication methods to ensure inclusivity.
What it means for employees
Employees should be aware of how an enterprise agreement affects them and participate in any voting or consultation processes. If employees have concerns about the scope of an agreement or its fairness, they can raise those concerns with their union or directly with 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.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwca1916.pdfWant 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 →