The reimbursement of training costs at cl.7.2 states that the Applicant will pay course costs and time for employees required to complete 'skills training'.

There is no explanation of what 'skills training' is either in the Agreement or the explanation;

"skills training" is not a defined term, has its ordinary meaning, and its meaning in the context of cl.7.2 is self-evident (cf AWU [38](d));

Several deletions from the current Agreement to the proposed Agreement occur and the 'explanation' provided is merely "removed - refer to current agreement".

This is not an explanation as it does not explain the effect of that deletion. For example, see the explanation for cll.7, 8;

The effect of a deletion is, self-evidently, to remove the relevant term from the

A number of amendments are explained as being made to 'better outline responsibilities' without any offer of what that means - see cll.10, 11;

Clause 10 of the Agreement concerns fitness for work and cl.11 concerns security and safety procedures.

In context, the explanation that the changes are made to "better outline responsibilities of both parties" to the Agreement means, self-evidently, that the changes made to the Agreement have been made to better outline the parties' responsibilities in relation to fitness for work and security and safety procedures (cf AWU [38](f));

The Applicant has compared incomparable clauses - for example cl.13 of the Agreement with cl.8 of the current Agreement;

Contrary to AWU [38](g), the comparison table does not "compare incomparable clauses" and does not, in particular, compare cl.13 of the Agreement with cl 8 of the current Agreement;

The Applicant states that cl.14 has been 'updated as per Award' without any explanation of what that update is or what effect it has - the AWU is uncertain of what update to a dispute resolution clause is required by the Award in any event;

Clause 14 of the Agreement (as to dispute resolution) was said to have been "updated as per Award."

This means, on its face, that the Agreement was updated so as to meet the relevant requirements of the Award; the Award itself explains that cl.33 (as to dispute resolution) was affected by the Commission's consolidation of Modern Award amendments up to and including 27 August 2024 (that is, some nine years after the date of commencement of the current agreement) (cf AWU [38](h));

The Applicant states that cl.17 has been amended to specifically note that redundancy pay will not be made for fixed term or maximum term contracts, despite the Agreement not covering these types of employment;

The complaint at AWU [38](i) is not a complaint about whether all reasonable

steps were taken to explain the effect of the terms of the Agreement; the impugned explanation does explain the effect of the relevant term; the complaint is, in substance, an irrelevant complaint that the explanation given is unnecessary because the carve-out in cl.17.2 will not be engaged;

The explanation of the changes to the hours of work clause at cl.18 is confusing - "12hr field day with safety exception, field allowance payment refers to start/finish time found in definitions clause 5" and the contrasting explanation to the clause in the current agreement merely notes the sub-clauses being deleted;

There is nothing confusing about the explanation given to cl.18 when the explanation is read in its entirety; (cf AWU [38](j));

The explanation of cl.19 is sparse - noting that it has been 'rewritten'.

Additionally, the Applicant has removed 'rosters' from the current agreement and replaced it with the table found at this clause, with no explanation of how that table will be applied;

Whether or not the explanation of the change to cl.19 is "sparse" (cf AWU [38](k)) is a matter of characterisation and is, in any event, irrelevant; an understandable explanation of the change is given;

The explanation for additional hours is incomplete and misleading as the current Agreement provides additional payment for additional hours and the Agreement has removed this entitlement in cl.21 with no mention of this in the comparison document;

There is nothing incomplete or misleading about the explanation given of cl.21

(cf AWU [38](l)): that certain things were removed from the current Agreement in the preparation of the Agreement is specified in the third column of the comparative table and was addressed during negotiations with

The explanation of the payment of the meal allowance is confusing.

The Agreement states that the meal allowances, which are aligned with the ATO amounts, can be claimed through expenses in cl.22.1(a), however cl.22.1(c) states that for an employee to claim 'meal expenses', tax invoices are required to be submitted and cl.22.1(d) references employees being 'reimbursed'.

It is unknown on the face of the Agreement and the explanation provided by the Applicant if cll.22.1(a) and (b) are referring to the same or a different entitlement to cll.22.1(c) and (d), given the difference in terminology - an allowance is something paid, an expense or reimbursement is something claimed; and

There is nothing confusing about the explanation of cl.22, nor is the clause itself confusing as suggested by the AWU; cl.22.1(a) describes "the meal allowance able to be claimed through expenses..." (emphasis added); cl.22.1(c) picks up that language in explaining that to "claim meal expenses.

Employees are required to submit tax invoice to the Employer" (emphasis added), and cl.22(d) speaks of reimbursement (of the expense which will be met by an allowance) - the meaning and effect of cl.22 is clear, there is no relevant difference in terminology (cf AWU [38](m));

Due to the extremely low base salaries, the Applicant will never be required to pay any top up payments pursuant to this clause. There is no explanation of this.

There is nothing incomplete about the explanation of cl.38, what matters is whether reasonable steps were taken to explain the effect of the term - that was done;

Further, the assertion upon which the AWU's submission is premised (that Weatherford will never have to pay top-up payments pursuant to cl.38) is a submission made without evidence (cf AWU [38](n)).

• [83] The Applicant submits that regard must be had to all the steps taken by it to explain the meaning and effect of the Agreement. The Applicant submits a range of steps were taken including the steps set out at question 22 of the Form F17B.

• [84] The Applicant submits it is not to the point that some of the sessions it arranged were poorly attended, much of that is outside the hands of the Applicant. Other steps were taken including telephone calls. The Applicant submits that in circumstances where the second proposed Agreement was a variation of the first proposed Agreement that was voted down, the steps taken in relation to the first unsuccessful proposed Agreement ballot, inevitably inform the second.

• [85] The AWU submits that the explanation provided does not represent all reasonable steps. The comparison document is the only thing that all employees received. The AWU said the Applicant relies on phone calls made, however those phone calls were not for the purpose of explaining the Agreement, but for answering any questions employees had, putting the onus on the employee. The AWU submits Ms Muirhead did not know how many people received a phone call or answered a phone call during the access period.

• [86] The AWU submits that it was the Applicant's own evidence that the meetings on 28 and 30 January 2025 were poorly attended, the AWU submitting that the attendance was about 10% of the workforce and Ms Muirhead did not dispute that estimation.

• [87] The AWU submits the Applicant needs to rely on the comparison document to discharge its obligations under s.180(5), and that document has two disclaimers in the preamble that said it may contain errors. The AWU said it is hard to quantify what impact that would have on employees.

• [88] The Applicant submitted in reply that the disclaimers are no more than acceptance that the persons preparing the documents are human. The Applicant submitted the Commission has been invited to speculate about what was discussed in the hour long explanation sessions, however none of that was put to Ms Muirhead.

• [89] On its Form F18 filed on 21 February 2025, the AWU raised concerns that the Agreement did not appear to pass the BOOT. The AWU noted the annual salaries in the proposed Agreement were "incredibly low" and that the Applicant had stated employees may work up to 60% of the year on a compressed roster, which would attract penalty rates under the Award. In its submissions, the AWU submits that 60% of utilisation, 219 days, with 12-hour shifts would put an employee at almost 700 hours of work paid at ordinary hours listed in the Agreement, which would attract penalty rates under the terms of the Award.

• [90] The Applicant denies this in its submissions dated 23 April 2025. The Applicant submits that the AWU has not conducted a BOOT assessment, or if it has, has not adduced any evidence about that. Ms Muirhead states that she has conducted a BOOT assessment of the three most common schedules of employees covered by the Agreement and determined they are paid above the Award. Further, Ms Muirhead states that despite the utilisation of the employee, they are paid their base salary with an additional field bonus.

• [91] The Applicant submits that ultimately, the complete answer to this is the undertaking already proffered to the Commission to reconcile payment as against the Award plus an additional 5% over any shortfall.

• [92] If, as a matter of construction it could be concluded that the four Field Specialist employees are covered by the proposed Agreement, the evidence does not establish that it was ever explained to the 49 employees who voted in the approval process, that 4 employees would be classified and remunerated differently to other employees under the Agreement they were asked to vote on, based on those 4 employees being Field Specialists and, according to the Applicant, having superior knowledge and experience above the other employees.

• [93] Ms Muirhead was precise in her evidence during the hearing about how the Applicant intended to remunerate and classify Field Specialists differently to all other employees under the Agreement. However, her evidence did nothing to establish how this was explained. Nowhere in the explanatory material does it mention the existence of Field Specialists, and nowhere in Ms Muirheads evidence does she say this was discussed during negotiations, or more importantly in meetings with employees, to explain the terms of the Agreement. The Agreement itself makes no mention of Field Specialists. The AWU, which claimed to be the bargaining representative of 40 of the 50 employees, said it did not know about the existence of a Field Specialist classification.

• [94] The Applicant has not brought any evidence to demonstrate that the different classification arrangements that Ms Muirhead clearly explained to the Commission, was explained to employees. On the available evidence, I am satisfied it was not. For that reason, if it is the case that the Applicant's primary position is correct, and that Field Specialists are covered by the Agreement, the application must fail because the Applicant has not taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the terms of the Agreement, and the effect of those terms, are explained to employees employed at the time who will be covered by the Agreement.

• [95] Section 188(4A) provides that the Commission cannot be satisfied that the Agreement has been genuinely agreed to by employees covered by the Agreement unless the Commission is satisfied that the employer complied with s.180(5) in relation to the Agreement. As explained above, I am not satisfied the Applicant has complied with section 180(5).

• [96] In any event, in circumstances where it is not knowable how an explanation of this may have affected how employees voted; had it been properly explained, particularly in circumstances where the success or failure of the ballot turned on 1 vote; it would not be possible to accept an undertaking to cure the deficiency caused by the Applicant's failure to explain how Field Specialists were to be classified under the Agreement.

• [97] Based on the findings above, even if I were to accept the Applicant's primary argument, the application must fail because of the deficiency in relation to the preapproval steps. The effect of my conclusion above is that the Applicant's first argument in the alternative, in relation to the proposed undertaking must also fail, because an undertaking cannot be accepted to cure the deficiency.

• [98] For the reasons above the application is dismissed and it is strictly unnecessary to consider the other submissions made.

• [99] However, for completeness if I were required to determine the question as to the proper construction of the Agreement in relation to whether the four Field Specialists are covered, I prefer the AWU's submission that they are not, because they do not fall within the classifications described in the Agreement.

• [100] The Applicant has submitted that such a conclusion would be one of form over substance, however it is clear from the evidence that Field Specialists are identified as such in their contracts of employment, are identified distinctly in the Applicant's internal systems, and are acknowledged by the Applicant as having superior knowledge and experience warranting them being remunerated and classified differently to how other Field Operators are remunerated and classified. The evidence does not support the conclusion that this is simply a matter of different nomenclature, and that the existence of a discrete group of employees who are remunerated and classified as Field Specialists, is in fact an issue of substance that needed to be described in the Agreement, in order for those employees to be properly covered by the Agreement.

• [101] I also agree with the AWU's submission that this is not a situation where the Commission could exercise power to correct or amend an obvious error pursuant to s.218A. The evidence does not support the conclusion that the inclusion of a specific classification system for Field Specialists reflects what the parties intended. It seems more likely than not that the AWU was simply never told about the existence of this group of employees being classified as Field Specialists, and as a bargaining representative for a significant number of employees, the circumstances of the failure of the Agreement to include that classification of employees in the classification structure of the Agreement is not an obvious error.

For the reasons set out above the application is dismissed.

C Beetham of counsel instructed by D Hartfield, for the Applicant

[3] Witness statement of Francesca Muirhead [20], DCB 12.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer