The Fair Work Commission has dismissed Weatherford Australia Pty Ltd’s application to approve the Tubular Running Services Field Employees Enterprise Agreement 2025 after determining that employees not covered by the proposed Agreement were permitted to vote on it.
The Agreement passed by just one vote (25–24). Given the razor-thin margin, the error was decisive. The Commission found that the employer did not properly identify who was eligible to vote and did not adequately explain how certain employees—Field Specialists—fit within the classification structure. As a result, the Agreement was not validly made and could not be approved.
Voter Eligibility: A Central Requirement
Under s.181 of the Fair Work Act, only employees who will be covered by an agreement may vote on it. The proposed Agreement included classifications for Field Operators level 1 to 4.
However, the roll of eligible voters also included employees classified as Field Specialist I–IV.
At hearing the FWC heard that:
- Field Specialists are identified separately in contracts, internal systems, emails, signatures and job titles.
- Field Specialists have different levels of technical knowledge and experience.
- The Agreement made no reference to Field Specialists as a classification or sub-classification.
- The NERR also made no reference to Field Specialists.
- The union representing approximately 40 employees said it had no knowledge that Field Specialists were intended to be covered.
- No explanatory materials described how Field Specialists would fit into the new structure.
The Commission concluded that Field Specialists were not covered by the Agreement and therefore should not have voted. This alone was enough to invalidate the ballot.
Why the Error Could Not Be Fixed After the Vote
Weatherford proposed an undertaking to insert Field Specialists into the Agreement’s classification tables after the vote. The Commission rejected this option because:
1. An undertaking cannot correct a breach of s.181 (who may vote).
2. Even if Field Specialists were intended to be included, the employer did not comply with s.180(5) because it failed to explain how Field Specialists would be classified or paid under the Agreement.
3. With a one-vote margin, it is impossible to know whether proper explanations or the exclusion of ineligible voters would have changed the outcome.
For these reasons, the Commission dismissed the application.
Key Findings on the Rolle of Voters
- Field Specialists formed a distinct group with different job titles and remuneration.
- The Agreement did not list this group anywhere in its coverage or classification schedules.
- Employees were never told how Field Specialists would be treated under the Agreement.
- Four Field Specialists voted, despite not being eligible.
- The one-vote majority meant the defect was critical and could not be cured.
Takeaway for HR and IR Teams
This decision shows how essential it is to get the basics right: identify who the Agreement applies to, explain it clearly, and ensure only those employees vote.
Had these steps been taken, the employer’s bargaining efforts might not have been undone by a single vote.
Practical Lessons for Employers
1. Make sure your classification structure reflects the real workforce
If the Agreement is intended to apply to a role, that role must appear in the coverage clause, or the classification schedule. If a job title used internally does not match the title in the Agreement, fix this before the vote.
2. Only eligible employees should vote
Even one ineligible voter can invalidate the process. Before a vote, employers should review every employee’s classification, confirm who is (and is not) covered, and remove anyone whose coverage is unclear.
3. Explain how roles map into classifications
The Commission placed significant weight on the lack of explanation regarding Field Specialists. To comply with s.180(5), tell employees what their classification will be, explain any changes from existing structures, provide clear written material, and discuss this in employee sessions.
Silence on these issues creates real risk.
4. Do not rely on undertakings to fix coverage problems
Undertakings can clarify, but they cannot enlarge coverage, or remedy the inclusion of ineligible voters. These issues must be corrected before any vote takes place.
5. Treat close ballots with extra care
A one-vote difference heightens scrutiny. Employers should immediately check voter eligibility, review all explanatory steps, consider re-running the vote if anything is uncertain.
Simplify Your EA Ballot Process
When it comes to enterprise agreements, clear communication and compliance are non-negotiable. At IRBLOTS, we support employers in running simple, secure, and compliant EA ballots that meet all Fair Work requirements.
Planning an enterprise agreement? Partner with IRBLOTS to ensure your ballot is transparent, stress-free, and fully compliant. Request a quote today or contact us today to get started.
Submit the below form to a receive a balloting quote for IR BLOTS to conduct your Industrial Relations Ballot
Posted in Uncategorized