1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Applus Pty Ltd
(B2020/818)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BINET PERTH, 18 DECEMBER 2020
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Applus Pty Ltd.
[1] The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) has applied to the Fair Work Commission
(FWC) for a protected action ballot order (Application) pursuant to section 437 of the Fair
Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).
[2] The Application was supported by a statutory declaration from Mr Douglas Heath,
Offshore Alliance Organiser, AWU.
[3] The Application seeks an order for a ballot to be conducted of employees from Applus
Pty Ltd (Applus) who perform work on facilities owned or managed by Woodside Energy
Limited in the following classifications and are represented by, or members of, the AWU
(Employees):
AICIP Plant Inspectors (including AICIP, API and ASME);
1. NACE Inspectors – all levels;
2. Inspection Engineers;
3. Welding Inspectors;
4. Tank Inspectors;
5. Thermography Inspectors;
6. EEHA Inspectors;
7. QA/QC Inspectors;
8. Marine Inspectors;
9. Rope Access Technicians and Supervisors;
10. Engineering Support Staff and Supervisors;
11. Engineers;
[2020] FWC 6904
DECISION
E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2020] FWC 6904
2
12. Graduate Engineers;
13. Lead Engineers; and
14. Site Administrators.
[4] On 18 December 2021, Applus notified Chambers they did not oppose the issuing of
an Order on modified terms agreed with the AWU.
Background
[5] Applus provides testing, inspection and certification services in support of capital
assets and infrastructure operated by its clients, principally in the industries of oil and gas,
construction and mining.
[6] The Employees to be balloted perform non-NDT services at Woodside Energy Ltd
(WEL) offshore and onshore oil and gas facilities. Offshore are two fixed platforms, two
unmanned plaftorms and two floating production facilities (Pluto and Angel). Onshore are the
Pluto Facility and the LNG Facility.
[7] Applus provide services that assist WEL to meet its safety and regulatory obligations
by assessing asset integrity and providing assurance that the asset is safe to operate. For
example:
a. AICIP Inspectors provide statutory inspections on pressure retaining services (to
ensure there is no loss of containment of hydrocarbons);
b. NACE Inspectors conduct coating inspections to assess corrosion and the impact this
may have on the life of the asset; and
c. mechanical engineers advise WEL on rectifying or mitigating the risks presented by
the defect.
[8] The oil and gas industry is a high risk environment, and all WEL facilities onshore and
offshore at which Applus provides services are deemed to be 'major hazard facilities'. WEL
rely on Applus services to ensure their facilities are safe to operate and that they are meeting
their ongoing statutory and regulatory requirements with respect to safety, and this includes
when the regulator (NOSPEMA) issues a direction to address a fault or defect at short notice.
[9] There is a high demand for the services that Applus provide and Applus has
exclusively provided these asset integrity and testing services to WEL since 1989. There has
been an increase in the number of oil and gas facilities in Western Australia since this time,
which has also resulted in a greater demand for personnel who can perform the asset integrity
and testing services Applus provide. The supply of these personnel in the Western Australian
market has not been matched by the demand.
Consideration
[10] The FWC is obliged to issue a protected ballot order in the following circumstances:
“443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order
[2020] FWC 6904
3
(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed
enterprise agreement if:
(a) an application has been made under section 437; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying
to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be
balloted.
(2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed
enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).
(3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:
(a) the name of each applicant for the order;
(b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;
(c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;
(d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted,
including the nature of the proposed industrial action.
(4) If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission
is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the
protected action ballot order must also specify:
(a) the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the
protected action ballot agent; and
(b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be
the independent advisor for the ballot.
(5) If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the
subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances
justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being
longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer
period of up to 7 working days.
Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for
a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who
will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the
employer of the employee.
[11] Section 437 relevantly provides as follows:
“437 Application for a protected action ballot order
Who may apply for a protected action ballot order:
[2020] FWC 6904
4
(1) A bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by a proposed
enterprise agreement, or 2 or more such bargaining representatives (acting jointly),
may apply to the FWC for an order (a protected action ballot order) requiring a
protected action ballot to be conducted to determine whether employees wish to
engage in particular protected industrial action for the agreement.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the proposed enterprise agreement is:
(a) a greenfields agreement; or
(b) a multi-enterprise agreement.
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply unless there has been a notification time in relation
to the proposed enterprise agreement.
Note: For notification time, see subsection 173(2). Protected industrial action cannot
be taken until after bargaining has commenced (including where the scope of the
proposed enterprise agreement is the only matter in dispute).
Matters to be specified in application
(3) The application must specify:
(a) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted; and
(b) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted,
including the nature of the proposed industrial action.
(4) If the applicant wishes a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission to
be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the application
must specify the name of the person.
Note: The protected action ballot agent will be the Australian Electoral Commission
unless the FWC specifies another person in the protected action ballot order as the
protected action ballot agent (see subsection 443(4)).
(5) If A group of employees specified under paragraph (3)(a) is taken to include only
employees who:
(a) will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement; and
(b) either:
(i) are represented by a bargaining representative who is an applicant
for the protected action ballot order; or
(ii) are bargaining representatives for themselves but are members of an
employee organisation that is an applicant for the protected action ballot
order.
[2020] FWC 6904
5
Documents to accompany application
(6) The application must be accompanied by any documents and other information
prescribed by the regulations.”
[12] It is not in dispute that the AWU has standing to make the Application in its capacity
as a bargaining representative. The notification time in relation to the Proposed Agreement is
30 July 2020. The Proposed Agreement is not a greenfields agreement or a multi-enterprise
agreement.
[13] The Application specifies the group of employees who are to be balloted.
[14] The AWU have proposed that the Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd, T/A CiVS conduct
the ballot.
[15] The Application specifies the questions to be put to the employees who are to be
balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.
[16] The Application was accompanied by the documents and other information prescribed
by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth).
[17] I am therefore satisfied that the Application has been made in accordance with section
437 of the FW Act.
[18] The FWC may only make the order sought if the FWC is satisfied that each applicant
has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees
who are to be balloted.
[19] The reference to the FWC being “satisfied” means that determining whether or not the
requisite circumstance exists is a discretionary decision. The expression “has been, and is”,
imports temporal considerations, both of which are to be considered. An applicant for a
protected action ballot order must satisfy both.
[20] In Esso Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and
Kindred Industries Union; Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information,
Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; The Australian Workers' Union 1
the Full Bench stated:
“Whether an applicant ‘has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement’ is a
question of fact to be decided having regard to all of the facts and circumstances of the
particular case. Such a construction of s.443(1)(b) is consistent with the judgment of
the Full Court in JJ Richards and with a number of Full Bench decisions of the
Commission (see Total Marine; Pelican Point Power Limited v ASU; JJ Richards
No.1; Alcoa; JJ Richards No.2; and Farstad” 2 (references omitted)
1 [2015] FWCFB 210.
2 Ibid at [57]
http://www.fwc.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2015fwcfb210.htm
[2020] FWC 6904
6
[21] In Total Marine Services Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia 3 a Full Bench of Fair
Work Australia relevantly stated:
“[31] In our view the concept of genuinely trying to reach an agreement involves a
finding of fact applied by reference to the circumstances of the particular negotiations.
It is not useful to formulate any alternative test or criteria for applying the statutory
test because it is the words of s 443 which must be applied. In the course of examining
all of the circumstances it may be relevant to consider related matters but ultimately
the test in s 443 must be applied.
[32] We agree that it is not appropriate or possible to establish rigid rules for the
required point of negotiations that must be reached. All the relevant circumstances
must be assessed to establish whether the applicant has met the test or not. This will
frequently involve considering the extent of progress in negotiations and the steps
taken in order to try and reach an agreement...”
[22] Both decisions stand for the proposition that a decision rule should not be adopted for
the purposes of determining whether an applicant for a protected action ballot order has been,
and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to
be balloted. The entirety of the circumstances of the case must be taken into account.
[23] The AWU provided evidence of the steps taken by them to bargain and of the progress
of bargaining to date.
[24] In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that the AWU has been, and is, genuinely
trying to reach an agreement with Applus.
[25] Pursuant to section 414 of the FW Act, where an employee is to engage in protected
industrial action, their bargaining representative must give written notice of the action.
Section 414(2) of the FW Act requires three working days’ notice, or any longer period
specified in the protected action ballot order.
[26] Applus submit that if an order is to be made that the FWC should exercise its
discretion to increase the subsection 414(2)(a) notice period of three working days.
[27] Section 443(5) of the FW Act provides that:
“If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the
subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances
justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer
than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of
up to 7 working days.”
[28] This requires consideration of4:
a. whether the circumstances are ‘exceptional’;
3 [2009] FWAFB 368
4 National Tertiary Education Industry Union v Charles Darwin University [2018] FWCFB 4011 at [23]-[25]
http://www.fwc.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2009fwafb368.htm
[2020] FWC 6904
7
b. whether the ‘exceptional circumstances’ justify a requirement of notice longer
than the statutory default; and
c. what the period of notice should be up to a maximum of seven days.
[29] The determination of whether the circumstances of a particular case are ‘exceptional’
involves an evaluative judgement of those circumstances. Circumstances may be
“exceptional” if they are out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon. They need
not be unique, unprecedented, rare, or unexpected. For this purpose, “circumstances” may
include a combination of factors which together produce a situation which is out of the
ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon, notwithstanding that none of them taken in
isolation would be “exceptional”.5
[30] Determining whether the “exceptional circumstances” justify a requirement of notice
longer than the statutory default inevitably requires balancing the interests of the employer
and third parties in having a greater opportunity to take defensive action, against those of the
employees which may be adversely affected by a diminution in the effect of their industrial
action, and hence their bargaining power.
[31] Having concluded that particular circumstances are exceptional and that they justify a
requirement of a notice period longer than the statutory default, a Member must decide
whether to exercise their discretion to grant an additional period of notice and determine how
long that period should be. 6
[32] Applus provided evidence in support of its assertion that exceptional circumstances
currently exist which justify a requirement for a longer notice period.
[33] Applus say that a period of three days' notice is not sufficient for it to adequately
respond to any form of industrial action because of the nature of the industry it operates in,
the nature of the work it undertakes and the statutory and regulatory framework it which it
undertakes its work in. In particular:
a. Applus is in the oil and gas industry and operates both off-shore locations (fixed and
floating platform), and on-shore in remote locations in the Pilbara region of Western
Australia;
b. Applus is the exclusive provider of testing, inspection and certification services in
support of capital assets and infrastructure to WEL;
c. the provision of these services is 'safety critical' to WEL as the services provided by
Applus are subject to statutory inspection requirements and oversight by regulatory
bodies; and
d. should Applus be disrupted in its ability to provide these services to Woodside, there
is the potential for catastrophic safety consequences.
5
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing, and Allied Services Union of Australia v
Australian Postal Corporation (2007) 167 IR 4; [2007] AIRC 848 at [10]; accepted as a correct statement of the law in
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v DP World Sydney Ltd [2019] FCAFC 99 at [7]-[8].
6 National Tertiary Education Industry Union v Charles Darwin University [2018] FWCFB 4011 at [25]
[2020] FWC 6904
8
[34] Applus submit that it is therefore crucial that it be provided with sufficient notice to
mobilise additional labour if necessary. The ability to do so in a three day timeframe is
significantly hampered by on-going skill shortages, international and interstate border
restrictions due to COVID-19 and mandatory induction requirements imposed by both WEL
and Applus.
[35] Since the start of this year, over 50% of Applus personnel have been based in the
Eastern States of Australia. The travel restrictions on international and interstate travel due to
the global pandemic has impacted on the number of personnel Applus can mobilise to provide
the services required at the WEL facilities.
[36] The recent New South Wales and South Australia border closures at short notice
highlights the difficulties Applus has faced in mobilising workers to site and has also meant
that some workers who would be able to travel interstate have been reluctant to do so because
of the risk they may get locked out of their home state.
[37] Applus say that if only three days' notice was provided to it prior to the protected
industrial action being taken, this would be an insufficient amount of time for Applus to
engage with WEL on the need to mitigate the impact on industrial action on meetings its
safety and regulatory requirements.
[38] In managing these statutory and regulatory requirements, Applus would need to:
a. effectively plan and communicate the potential high priority statutory work to be
performed within the period of industrial action; and
b. realign resources to take steps to reschedule any other critical work on the on-shore
and off-shore facilities, which could increase the risk of loss, of containment or other
safety hazards if work scheduled to be performed is delayed and carried out at a later
date.
[39] To mitigate risks of a statutory or regulatory breach and aggravating dangerous safety
hazards as a result of any failure to perform safety critical work, Applus would need to:
a. induct new employees from Applus to WEL which, depending on the location, can
take a number of days (up to seven days and potentially beyond that period) given the
reliance on third parties to deliver the relevant training and amount of training that is
involved as in the absence of the relevant safety inductions, employees cannot travel
to site;
b. once the relevant competencies are met, new employees need to be approved by the
WEL safety systems; and
c. then a flight would need to be booked to site.
[40] Applus say that these processes cannot be fulfilled in three days and if no employee
can perform the safety critical work while protected action is being taken, the consequences
would be catastrophic. For the above reasons Applus say that it would need seven days at
least to work with WEL to put in place appropriate mitigation strategies to deal with the
protected action such that WEL does not breach its regulatory and statutory requirements and
to mitigate the safety risks identified above.
[2020] FWC 6904
9
[41] While each case needs to be considered on its facts, characteristics of off-shore
workplaces, particularly in the hydro-carbon industry, have been previously -held by the FWC
to be exceptional as compared to other Australian workplaces.7 This has been the case even
where the ballot questions include safety related exclusions, as is the case in this Application.8
[42] With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions, the ability to
respond within three days to any form of industrial action is further compromised.
[43] I am satisfied that the nature, and potential impact, of the proposed industrial action in
light of the current COVID-19 pandemic is such that exceptional circumstances do exist
justifying the extension of the notice period. In light of the evidence before me I have
decidedto exercise my discretion to grant an extension of the notice period. I am satisfied that
an extension of the notice period from three working days to seven working days is
appropriate in all the circumstances.
[44] Having been satisfied that the requirements of section 443 and 437 of the FW Act
have been complied with, the Application is granted and a protected action ballot order shall
be issued in PR725641.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
PR725643
7 See for example AMWU v Skilled Offshore Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 6727 (Gostencnik DP), upheld on appeal in Skilled
Offshore Pty Ltd v AMWU [2015] FWCFB 7399; CEPU v M Maintenance Pty Ltd (2019) PR710683; AWU v Sodexo Remote
Sites Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 2012 (Platt C); AWU v Sodexo Remote Sites Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 3583
(Anderson DP) and PR720839.
8 See AMWU v Skilled Offshore Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 6727 (Gostencnik DP); CEPU v M Maintenance Pty Ltd (2019)
PR710683; AWU v Sodexo Remote Sites Australia Pty Ltd (2020) PR720839
THE FAIR WORK CO ATRALIA S SEAL OF NOLS THE S
