© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2020] FCA 581
Federal Court of Australia
2020-05-01
Reeves J
Original judgment source is linked above.
REEVES J: 1 This matter concerns the construction of cl 13.2 of the Kentz Pty Ltd Ichthys Onshore Construction Greenfields Agreement (the Agreement). The narrow question for determination is whether the reference to an "Electrical licence" in cl 13.2(a) of the Agreement refers to any kind of electrical licence or whether it refers to an unrestricted electrical licence.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 The key facts in this matter below have been extracted from the Statement of Agreed Facts filed by the parties. 3 The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the CEPU) is a registered organisation under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) and is a registered employee organisation under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FWA). It represents Mr Luke Brown, Mr Farib Parra Moreno and Mr Vipul Pathak, the three employees affected by this proceeding. 4 The Ichthys Project (the Project) involved the construction and commissioning of an onshore liquefied natural gas processing plant at Blaydin Point near Darwin in the Northern Territory. Kentz Pty Ltd, the respondent company, was engaged in September 2014 to perform electrical work at the Project. 5 The Agreement is an enterprise agreement made under the FWA. It was approved by the Fair Work Commission on 22 September 2014. It commenced operation one week later in accordance with s 54(1) of the FWA. It applied to the employees identified in cl 3 of the Agreement, which included Mr Brown, Mr Moreno and Mr Pathak mentioned above. 6 The clause of the Agreement at the centre of this matter (cl 13.2) relevantly provides: 13.2 Summary of Allowances The following allowances are paid, in addition to the Base Hourly Rate set out in subclause 13.1(a) above, where applicable. For the purposes of this clause the following applies: Flat Allowance: Paid as a separate stand alone payment in addition to the Base Hourly Rate and does not form part of the Base Hourly Rate for the purposes of calculating overtime penalties or paid leave. All Purpose Allowance: Added to the Base Hourly Rate and applies on top of the Base Hourly Rate for the purposes of calculating overtime or paid leave. (a) The weekly and/or hourly All Purpose Allowances are set out in the table below: All Purpose Allowances Weekly Hourly (From 01/11/12) (36 x hourly allowance) (From 01/11/12) Leading Hand (as defined) 1-9 Employees $44.10 $1.22 10-19 Employees $66.12 $1.83 20 or more Employees $88.14 $2.44 Rigger, Dogger, Scaffolders holding and using licenses issued pursuant to the relevant Act and/or Regulations $35.27 $0.97 Tradesperson tool allowance $39.87 $1.11 Tradesperson allowance $81.45 $2.25 Plumbing and/or Electrical licence $52.88 $1.47 Crane Operation - Lofty or Tower Crane $79.29 $2.20 Mobile Crane i) up to 80 tonne $17.62 $0.48 ii) over 80 tonne and up to 120 tonne $61.73 $1.71 iii) over 120 tonne and up to 300 tonne $70.48 $1.96 iv) over 300 tonne and up to 500 tonne $79.30 $2.19 v) over 500 tonne $85.97 $2.38 Qualification payments (Refer to Appendix 1 - Definitions) i) Welder Tested* $35.27 $0.97 ii) Welder - Special Class * $61.73 $1.71 iii) Welder - Special Class Exotic Materials * $108.02 $2.99 iv) Instrumentation Tradesperson $35.27 $0.97 v) Instrumentation Tradesperson - Complex Systems $61.73 $1.71 vi) Electrical/Mechanical Tradesperson Special Class $61.73 $1.71 vii) Control Systems Tradesperson ** $61.73 $1.71 viii) Instrumentation and Control Tradesperson *** $158.62 $4.40 ix) Electronics Tradesperson *** $158.62 $4.40
THE CONTENTIONS 16 Both parties accepted that the principles bearing on the proper construction of an enterprise agreement are well settled, citing Workpac Pty Ltd v Skene (2018) 264 FCR 536; [2018] FCAFC 131 at [197] where the Full Court held: The starting point for interpretation of an enterprise agreement is the ordinary meaning of the words, read as a whole and in context: City of Wanneroo v Holmes (1989) 30 IR 362 at 378 (French J). The interpretation "… turns on the language of the particular agreement, understood in the light of its industrial context and purpose …": Amcor Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2005) 222 CLR 241 at [2] (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J). The words are not to be interpreted in a vacuum divorced from industrial realities (Holmes at 378); rather, industrial agreements are made for various industries in the light of the customs and working conditions of each, and they are frequently couched in terms intelligible to the parties but without the careful attention to form and draftsmanship that one expects to find in an Act of Parliament (Holmes at 378-9, citing Geo A Bond & Co Ltd (in liq) v McKenzie [1929] AR(NSW) 498 at 503 (Street J)). To similar effect, it has been said that the framers of such documents were likely of a "practical bent of mind" and may well have been more concerned with expressing an intention in a way likely to be understood in the relevant industry rather than with legal niceties and jargon, so that a purposive approach to interpretation is appropriate and a narrow or pedantic approach is misplaced: see Kucks v CSR Limited (1996) 66 IR 182 at 184 (Madgwick J); Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association v Woolworths SA Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 67 at [16] (Marshall, Tracey and Flick JJ); Amcor at [96] (Kirby J). (Emphasis removed) However, the parties differed on the relevant industrial context affecting the construction of the Agreement. 17 The CEPU pointed to a number of aspects of that context in support of its claim that Kentz was required to pay the additional allowance to the three employees involved. First, the electrical licence allowance provided for an additional payment to be made to licenced employees in recognition that those persons should receive a higher pay than tradespeople who are not required to be licenced. Further, the additional allowances described as "Qualifications allowances" are reflective of work performed, rather than the individual's qualification. The CEPU claimed that this supported its contention that the allowances payable are differentiated according to work performed. In contrast with the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2010, the CEPU contended that the words used in cl 13.2 do not differentiate between a restricted or unrestricted licence. In circumstances where a restricted licence is still an electrical licence which enables the holder to perform electrical work that an unlicensed person cannot perform, the CEPU contended that the holder of a restricted licence is entitled to the allowance. 18 In response, Kentz contended that, on its proper construction, the expression "Electrical licence" in the Table refers to an electrical tradesperson holding an unrestricted Electrical Mechanic Grade A licence. It contended that the Agreement must be interpreted according to its industrial context, which includes the varying degrees of duty and responsibility assigned to electricians on the Project, as outlined in the affidavit of Mr Nichols above. Accordingly, Kentz contended that the expression "Electrical licence" should be read as referring to the term "Electrical Mechanic - Certified" as defined in Appendix 1 of the Agreement which provides: A tradesperson who is required to hold an Electrical Mechanics Certificate issued by the Electrical Workers' and Contractors' Board, or its equivalent, as a result of additional responsibilities assumed for testing and connecting their own work. … (Emphasis added) This construction is appropriate, it contended, because it provides a monetary distinction between electrical workers reflective of the additional duties required of those workers.
CONSIDERATION 19 The meaning of the words "Plumbing and/or Electrical licence" in row 5 of the Table is quite clear from their text. They refer generally to the two types of licence described, namely a plumbing licence and an electrical licence. They do not, on their face, refer to a particular category of one of those two types of licences, much less to a particular category of electrical licences, namely an unrestricted electrical licence, as claimed by Kentz. There is, therefore, no justification for reading into those words the word "unrestricted" before the word "Electrical". 20 In my view, this clarity of meaning is removed, rather than improved, by the contextual arguments advanced by Kentz. In the first place, the Northern Territory legislation - the Electrical Workers and Contractors Act 1978 (NT) and the Electrical Workers and Contractors Regulations 1984 (NT) - does not have a category of licence described as an "unrestricted electrical licence". Instead, it is common ground that the equivalent licence in that legislation is the licence described in reg 5 of the Regulations as an "Electrical worker's licence endorsed as electrical mechanic grade A". Confusion, rather than clarity, would therefore be created by reading, or inserting, the word "unrestricted" before the word "licence", as Kentz contended. 21 Secondly, as Kentz pointed out in its submissions, the licence described in reg 5 above corresponds generally to an "Electrical Mechanic - Certified" as defined in cl (g) of Appendix 1 (see at [8] above), albeit that that definition does not use the word "licence". That being so, if the words "Electrical licence" in row 5 of the Table were intended to be confined to such a licence, one would have expected to see that defined expression used in those words. The fact it is not also stands against Kentz's contextual argument. 22 Thirdly, and relatedly, it is significant that the defined expression above does not appear anywhere in the Table, thus indicating that the holding of such an unrestricted licence is not relevant to the allowances provided for in cl 13.2. 23 Fourthly, and further to the above, the other allowances in the Table that are dependent on the employee concerned holding a licence, namely a rigger, a dogger, a scaffolder, contain the additional requirement that the employee concerned is "using" that licence (see row 2 in the Table above). This distinction therefore tends to indicate that merely holding a plumbing and/or electrical licence is sufficient for the purposes of the allowance provided for in row 5. Furthermore, the references to these other three types of licence in the Table compound the difficulty associated with reading the word "unrestricted" before the word "electrical" in row 5 as mentioned at [19] above. 24 Fifthly and finally, the following notes appearing after the Table, and which correspond to the asterisks within it, provide further contextual features which stand against Kentz's contentions: * Welding allowances are not cumulative ** The Control Systems Tradesperson Allowance will be paid to all Licensed Electricians *** The Instrumentation and Control Tradesperson and the Electronic Tradesperson allowances are in lieu of all other electrical allowances except for the electrical licence allowance. 25 The first of these asterisked notes serves to clarify that the three welding allowances in i), ii) and iii) of row 8 are not cumulative. This is important because, subject to the qualification provided for by the third asterisked note, which is addressed below, the absence of a similar provision with respect to the remaining tradesperson's allowances described in row 8 suggests, by implication, that no such restriction applies to them. Turning then to the second asterisked note, it provides that the allowance described in cl vii) of row 8, namely "The Control Systems Tradesperson Allowance" is to be paid to "all Licensed Electricians" (emphasis added). This is important because the only other similar expression in cl 13.2, or in the Table, or in Appendix 1, is that in row 5: "…Electrical licence". In context, therefore, the words "all licensed Electricians" must be intended to refer to those employees who hold an electrical licence. Finally, the third asterisked note provides that the allowances in cll viii) and ix) of row 8 are in lieu of, that is not cumulative to, "all other electrical allowances except for the electrical licence allowance". Having regard to the terms of the second asterisked note above, and the identical terminology used, the latter words must also be taken to refer to the allowance provided for in row 5. Since the only other allowances provided for are those in row 8 of the Table, the former words must therefore be taken to refer to those allowances. 26 Accordingly, when the content and structure of all these provisions in cl 13.2 and the Table are read in their proper context, I consider the CEPU is correct in its contentions that they operate as follows. First, as each of the three employees mentioned above was an "Instrument Tradesperson - Complex Systems", they are entitled to the allowance provided for in cl v) of row 8. In addition, because they each held an electrical licence, albeit unrestricted, they are entitled to the electrical licence allowance provided for in row 5. 27 For these reasons, I consider the CEPU is correct in its construction of the apposite provisions of the Table at cl 13.2 of the Agreement. It follows that it is entitled to the declaration it has sought and the three employees involved are entitled to be paid by way of compensation the agreed amounts (see at [11] above). I will hear further from the parties on the form of these orders and on the question as to what pecuniary penalties should be imposed on Kentz. I certify that the preceding twenty-seven (27) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Reeves.
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
Kentz Pty Ltd