ETU members compensated to the tune of over $28,000 in enterprise agreement win

Enterprise Agreement dispute win for ETU members – CEPU versus Kentz Pty Ltd

Hall Payne recently represented the Electrical Trades Union (“ETU”) in a dispute related to the interpretation of a clause in the Kentz Pty Ltd Ichthys Onshore Construction Greenfields Agreement (“the Agreement”). The clause related to the payment of licence allowances, in addition to the base hourly rate. The Federal Court found in favour of the ETU and its affected members.

Background

The case related to a dispute about whether the reference of ‘electrical licence’ in the ‘Summary of Allowance’ clause of the Agreement includes any kind of electrical licence or whether it refers only to an unrestricted electrical licence.

Hall Payne and ETU contended that the electrical licence allowance under the Agreement, described as ‘qualifications allowances’ reflected the work performed, rather than the individual’s qualification.

Further, the ETU argued that, unlike the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2010, the Agreement does not differentiate between a ‘restricted’ or ‘unrestricted licence’.  

The court agreed.

The decision

In May 2020, the Federal Court found that Kentz Pty Ltd (Kentz) had incorrectly applied its Agreement, contravening section 50 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The judgment means that the three ETU members affected by the proceedings, who all held a restricted electrical worker’s licence, are entitled to compensation of $28,825.02.

The Court criticized the contentions made by Kentz, noting that inserting the word ‘unrestricted’ before the word licence creates confusion rather than clarity as both the Electrical Workers and Contractors Act 1978 (NT) and the Electrical Workers and Contractors Regulations 1984 (NT) do not have an ‘unrestricted electrical licence’ category.

Further, the term does not appear anywhere in the allowance clause and as such:

one would have expected to see that defined expression used in those words”,

if the term was intended to confine to an unrestricted licence.

The amount of pecuniary penalty to be imposed upon Kentz for its breaches will be decided at a later date.

This decision is a significant win for ETU and its members and serves as a warning against employers seeking to read words into an enterprise agreement.

You can read the judgment of the Federal Court here.

Got concerns about interpretation or implementation of your enterprise agreement?

Hall Payne Lawyers has unrivalled experience in acting for unions in proceedings for breach of industrial instruments.

Contact one of our employment lawyers to discuss your matter and to see what options might be available.

Legal advice and assistance during COVID-19

We continue to provide our client services during the coronavirus outbreak.

Our team is fully equipped to work remotely whilst still delivering high-quality legal services.

We are working closely with the courts and our colleagues to ensure services to all new and existing clients are delivered efficiently and with as little disruption as possible.

You can contact us by phone or email to arrange a telephone or videoconference consultation.

Phone: 1800 659 114

Email: general@hallpayne.com.au

You can find the most recent ‘Coronavirus and Client Services’ updates by clicking here.


  This article relates to Australian law; either at a State or Federal level.

The information contained on this site is for general guidance only. No person should act or refrain from acting on the basis of such information. Appropriate professional advice should be sought based upon your particular circumstances. For further information, please do not hesitate to contact Hall Payne Lawyers.


author.GetPropertyValue(

Get in touch with today's blog writer:
Luke Tiley

Principal in Industrial & Employment Law

Previous Blog Post Next Blog Post