Application for approval of the Genus Infrastructure (Qld) Pty Ltd Transmission Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2024-2028.

[1] An application has been made for approval of a greenfields agreement known as the Genus Infrastructure (Qld) Pty Ltd Transmission Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2024-2028 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Genus Infrastructure Pty Ltd (the Applicant) with the support of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia (the CEPU) who are a party to the Agreement. The Australian Workers' Union (the AWU) objects to the approval of the Agreement, or in the alternative proposes the application be held in abeyance pending an appeal in another matter before a Full Court of the Federal Court. The AWU was granted permission to be heard in this matter.

[2] The Applicant lodged the application on 30 September 2025. The Agreement was made with the CEPU on 30 September 2025. The Agreement is substantially similar to the Genus Infrastructure (Qld) Pty Ltd Electrical Supply Industry Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2024 - 2028 which was made with the Applicant and the CEPU.

[3] The Agreement applies to all prospective employees in the classification structure to perform transmission line construction and maintenance work in the power transmission and electrical industry in Queensland. The classification structure includes most workers performing the prospective work but does not cover staff in supervisory and administration roles. The Agreement was drafted to tender for work in this industry, and the Applicant does not currently employ employees who would be covered by the Agreement.

[4] On 7 October 2025, the AWU requested access to the documents in relation to this application on the basis that they are the principal union in the civil construction sector and its significant membership in the sector.

[5] On 16 October 2025, I issued directions for the filing of submissions. Evidence and submissions were filed and the matter was conducted as an in person hearing on 28 November 2025. Mr Oshie Fagir of Counsel was granted leave to appear for the CEPU and the AWU was represented by Mr Geoff Taylor.

[6] The AWU filed a statement of contentions on 24 October 2025, and a further submission on 7 November 2025. The AWU submitted that it has historical and constitutional coverage of civil construction work, including the construction of power transmission structures and powerlines, being the work covered by the Agreement. The AWU submitted that the CEPU does not represent the majority of all employees who will perform work under the Agreement.

[7] For the Agreement to be capable of approval, it must meet the requirement under s.187(5)(a) that the relevant employee organisations that will be covered by the Agreement are (taken as a group) entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of the employees who will be covered by the Agreement, in relation to work to be performed under the Agreement. The AWU submit that the CEPU's eligibility rules are limited to the electrical industry, while the work described in the Agreement includes civil construction.

[8] The AWU submitted the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2020 (the Electrical Award) does not cover the construction of transmission lines, which instead falls under the Building and Construction On-site Award 2020 (the Construction Award). The CEPU's coverage does not extend to the latter award. The past history of disputes involving the construction of transmission lines demonstrates the AWU's involvement in such work, but does not include the CEPU. The AWU submitted that without evidence of the CEPU's eligibility and representation of the majority of employees, the Commission cannot be satisfied that the Agreement meets the legal requirements for approval.

[9] The AWU submitted that Mr Blewitt and the CEPU have not claimed that an electrical licence is required to perform the construction work the Applicant calls "Lineperson" work, and no reference is made in the classifications requiring an electrical licence, and it is only during the commissioning and the electrical lines, and then for the maintenance of the lines, that any worker would be properly classified as an "electrical linesperson" within the meaning of s.36 of the Electrical Safety Regulation 2013 (Qld).

[10] The AWU initially contended that the Commission cannot be satisfied that the Agreement meets the BOOT where the Applicant's Form F20 compared the provisions of the Agreement to the Electrical Award rather than the Construction Award. However, at the hearing, it withdrew this part of its objection on the basis that it accepted that regardless of which Award underpinned the Agreement, the Agreement would pass the BOOT.

[11] The AWU further submitted in the alternative that it should be put into abeyance pending the appeal against the decision in Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Elecnor Australia Pty Ltd[1] is decided, as it may be relevant to determining the CEPU's coverage.

[12] The Applicant provided that it adopted the submissions of the CEPU. The CEPU provided an outline of submissions on 31 October 2025 and submissions in reply on 14 November 2025. Mr Steve Blewitt, Regional Manager - East, for the Applicant provided a statement dated 30 October, 2025[2] and a reply statement dated 13 November 2025.[3] The CEPU submitted that it can cover a majority of employees proposed to be employed and the Electrical Award is the correct Award. The CEPU also submitted that the Agreement passes the BOOT in respect of the Building Award.

[13] As to coverage, the CEPU states that the proper construction of eligibility rules when considering a person eligible to join the union[4] provides that the Commission should take a generous approach to construction,[5] have regard to any industrial meaning or usage of the words,[6] give the words a wide meaning[7] and construe the words in accordance with their current denotation.[8]

[14] The CEPU emphasised that it is necessary to ascertain the primary purpose of the employee's employment[9] "by looking at what he or she does in the context of the employer's organisation of work".[10] This is not affected by the fact that another union may be eligible to cover the workers.[11]

[15] The ETU's rule 2.1 provides its eligibility as follows:

"Without limiting or in any way being limited by any of sub-rules 2.3 to 2.21 inclusive, the Union shall consist of an unlimited number of employees who have been admitted as members in accordance with the Rules of the Union and who are engaged or usually engaged as electrical fitters, armature winders, electrical mechanics, battery fitters, railway electricians, telephone fitters, radio workers, cable jointers, linesmen, arc lamp trimmers, electrical labourers, electric crane attendants, rail welders and their assistants, electric welders whose work is associated with the work of an electrician and electricians engaged or usually engaged or employed in running and maintaining electric plants, dynamo, motor and switchboard attendants, and all employees whose callings are peculiar to the electrical industry. Also all other persons whether employees in the industry or not as have been appointed officers of the Union and admitted as members thereof."

[16] The CEPU relied on its eligibility to represent linesman, electrical labourer and all employees whose callings are peculiar to the electrical industry under its eligibility rules. As to linesman, the CEPU provided a linesman is "a worker who is engaged in work which includes the erection, construction, installation and maintenance of overhead electrical poles, towers, conductors and electrical apparatus."[12]

[17] The CEPU stated that the phrase "employees who are employed in callings peculiar to the electrical industry" has been considered by a number of Full Benches. This includes the performance of work which involves handling of equipment and some understanding of electrical equipment as a calling peculiar to the electrical industry.[13] It does not matter that the work of an employee can be characterised as a different form of work where the task undertaken is peculiar to the electrical industry.[14]

[18] Per the statement of Mr Blewitt, the Applicant is engaged in work similar to that proposed to be covered by the Agreement in Western Australia and New South Wales. The other work the Applicant carries out in Queensland is distribution work and will not be subject to this Agreement.

[19] Mr Blewitt states that if the Agreement is approved, it will employ approximately 100 workers for transmission construction, of which 65 would be qualified linespeople and 35 would be responsible for construction of the electrical transmission towers. Mr Blewitt also provided that the maintenance work would likely employ around 30 additional new workers, of which 75% would be linespersons and the remainder would be Electrical Labourers under the Agreement.

[20] Mr Blewitt stated that the Electrical Labourer classifications cover employees who are responsible for construction electrical transmission towers or poles. Mr Blewitt further gives evidence that these Electrical Labourers "will need electrical knowledge because by the time they work on the assembly and erection of the towers, they will need to be trained and accredited with the Powerlink Electrical Safety Rules. These accreditations relate to working on, in and around electrical safety hazards and earthing requirements, and the permitting associated. They need to have electrical knowledge for this purpose."

[21] The CEPU noted that 65 of the workers, a majority of employees, are linespeople who are clearly covered by the CEPU. This would qualify the CEPU to be a registered organisation which meets the requirement under s.187(5)(a). The CEPU also submitted that on the evidence of Mr Blewitt, the remaining 35 Electrical Labourers are employees engaged in a calling which is peculiar to the electrical industry. The erection of towers for the transmission of electricity is in the electrical industry and peculiarly an electrical task. The Electrical Labourers require specific electrical knowledge as set out by Mr Blewitt, and this sets them apart from those performing similar tasks on other projects. The CEPU submitted the same is true for the employees to perform maintenance work.

[22] The CEPU submitted that it is clear that it is entitled to enrol all linespersons to be employed under the Agreement, and that any remaining employees are employees engaged in a calling which is peculiar to the electrical industry and are also entitled to be enrolled by the CEPU. Whether or not the CEPU would be entitled to enrol the Electrical Labourers, which it submitted it can, the CEPU is entitled to enrol the linespeople and that would be sufficient for approval of the Agreement.

[23] Mr Blewitt gave evidence in reply that for any work on transmission lines in Queensland, especially involving testing, earthing, or electrical connection, the Electrical Lineperson Licence is a requirement outlined in the Worksafe Classes of Electrical License, and this is mandated under s.43 of the Electrical Safety Regulation 2013, which specifically covers the license needed for working on overhead transmission lines.

[24] Mr Blewitt said any aspect of transmission line work - whether maintenance, construction or related testing - requires licensed personnel. Mr Blewitt gave examples that include installing or testing an earthing system, connecting/disconnecting conductors and apparatus and carrying out insulation resistance and continuity testing to verify or commission a network asset. Mr Blewitt said this is all electrical work under the Electrical Safety Regulation 2013. Mr Blewitt maintained in cross examination that the majority of the work involved in the tender included assembly, erecting and stringing of transmission towers and the majority of the work is carried out by qualified licensed persons. It was put to Mr Blewitt that the work of Stringers is not historically licensed. Mr Blewitt said those roles and competencies form part of the Certificate 3 under national competencies required to get an electrical licence.

[25] Mr Blewitt said Energy Queensland Limited (EQL) aligns the core work roles/functions with the UET Transmission Qualification UET30521, Distribution, and Rail Training Package, and for Power Worker (Trades Assistants) there are 2 units within the UET Package Rules focused on their core skills:

(a) UETDRMP002: ESI Safety Rules for working on or near electrical apparatus. This

unit ensures a baseline safety understanding for anyone working near transmission

(b) UETDRMP001: Apply Access Authority Procedures, which covers the necessary

permit and authority procedures for safe operation on or near live or potentially live

[26] Mr Blewitt said EQL also delivers Organisational /Industry training through ESI Train courses like T0911 (Introduction to Electrical Network Infrastructure for Authorised Persons) and T0838 (Working Safely On or Near Electrical Network Infrastructure), which are specifically designed for electricity supply industry (ESI) environments.

[27] Mr Blewitt said a critical aspect of transmission line work is managing electrostatic and electromagnetic induction hazards, and even if lines are de-energised, they can carry induced voltages from nearby energised circuits or simply from the wind-induced environment conditions.

[28] Mr Blewitt said the Applicant emphasises training in equipotential bonding, the use of portable earths, and safe earthing practices to mitigate these risks. This ensures all workers understand how to safely handle potential differences and avoid shock hazards in a transmission environment.

[29] Mr Blewitt also referred to the shared Electrical Safety Rules (ESR) document, a joint initiative between EQL and Powerlink. It was his evidence this represents an industry best practice framework, ensuring consistent training and authorisation outcomes for safe transmission line work. Mr Blewitt said this is a standard aligning both entities on safety protocols and training expectations.

[30] Mr Blewitt said the current framework ensures licensed personnel, aligned training to Electrical Supply Industry/UET Standards Australia, and shared safety governance under the ESR framework, and this approach supports safe, compliant, and consistent work practices across Queensland's transmission network.

[31] There is no contest that this is a case involving a genuine new enterprise, and I am satisfied the Agreement passes the BOOT.

[32] The issue in contest is whether the CEPU is eligible to represent the majority of employees who will be covered for the purposes of s.187(5) of the Act. I have concluded it is unnecessary for me to determine whether the proposed 35 persons responsible for construction of the electrical poles and towers fall within the eligibility rules of the CEPU.

[33] The AWU submitted on applying the principal purpose test to the work to be performed, and regardless of what the Applicant requires in relation to the employees' qualifications, the employees engaged during the construction phase fall do not fall with the CEPU's eligibility rules.

[34] Based on the evidence of Mr Blewitt I have reached a state of satisfaction that the CEPU is entitled to represent the proposed 65 trade qualified linespeople that will be employed under the CEPU's eligibility rules, as they are linesman within the meaning of the rule 2.1. Further 75% of employees performing maintenance will be trade qualified. In both phases that will be a majority of employees that will be covered.

[35] Noting clause 1.4 of the Agreement, I am satisfied that the more beneficial entitlements of the NES in the Act will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES.

[36] I am satisfied that each requirement of ss.186, 187 and 188 as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[37] In accordance with s.187(5)(a) of the Act, I am satisfied that the CEPU is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of employees who will be covered by the Agreement in relation to work that is to be performed under it. I am also satisfied that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement

[38] Pursuant to s.53(2)(b) of the Act, I note the Agreement was made with the CEPU and that the Agreement covers this organisation.

[39] The Agreement is approved and will operate in accordance with s.54 of the Act.

[1] [2025] FCA 156.

[4] Regional Air Express Limited v AFAP [2017] HCA 55; (2017) 262 CLR 456, [45]-[47].

[5] R v Isaac; Ex parte Transport Workers' Union [1985] HCA 80; (1985) 159 CLR 323, 340.

[6] R v Aird; Ex parte Australian Workers' Union [1973] HCA 53; (1973) 129 CLR 654, 659.

[7] R v Cohen; Ex parte Motor Accidents Insurance Board [1921] ArgusLawRp 66; (1979) 27 ALR 263, 270.

[8] Co-Operative Bulk Handling Ltd v Australian Workers' Union West Australian Branch Industrial Union of Workers and Waterside Workers Federation of Australia [1980] FCA 141; (1980) 32 ALR 541, 548-549.

[9] CFMEU v Dulux Group (Australia) Pty Ltd & Anor [2022] FCAFC 101; (2022) 293 FCR 1.

[10] CEPU v Elecnor Australia Pty Ltd (2025) 338 AR 58.

[11] Electrical Trades Union of Australia v Waterside Workers Federation of Australia (No. 2) (1982) 42 ALR 587, 595; CFMEU v CSBP Limited [2012] FCAFC 48; (2012) 212 IR 206, [48].

[12] CEPU v Elecnor Australia Pty Ltd (2025) 338 AR 58, [155].

[13] MTIA v ETU (1991) 44 IR 141, 148.

[14] Newtronics Pty Ltd v CEPU [1998] AIRC 1240.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer