1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content

Woodside Energy Limited v AMWU, CFMEU and Ors


Case number: WAD 231/2008  
Applicant(s): Woodside Energy Limited 
Respondent(s): AMWU, CFMEU & Ors 
Site: North-West Shelf Venture, Pilbara region 
Jurisdiction: AIRC 
Before: Gilmour J 
Hearing date:
2 December 2008
Intervention filed on: 27 November 2008 

Woodside Energy Limited (Woodside) is a joint venture partner in and operator of the North-West Shelf Venture (NWSV) in the Pilbara region of Western Australia which produces and sells liquefied natural gas, condensate and liquefied petroleum gas, primarily to overseas customers. Woodside is increasing the capacity of the Karratha Gas Plant which is the onshore gas processing facility of the NWSJV. This increase in capacity is being achieved through the North West Shelf Liquefied Natural Gas Phase V Expansion Project (Phase V Project)

Amongst the contractors engaged in construction work on the Phase V Project is CBI Constructors Pty Ltd (CBI) which is contracted to provide mechanical erection services, namely the installation of piping, structural steel, pipe supports and painting. CBI employed some 242 employees on the Phase V Project.

In October 2008 the AMWU and CFMEU demanded that CBI terminate the employment of employees working at the Phase V Project site and make the associated redundancy payments, and then re-hire them under a new agreement for the next phase of the project. When CBI refused, the workers took industrial action, despite an AIRC order restraining such action.

On 24 October 2008 Woodside applied to the Federal Court to restrain the unions from engaging in unlawful industrial action. CBI made a similar application in respect of its employees. Gilmour J granted an interlocutory injunction on 28 October 2008 in respect of CBI’s application.

On 2 December 2008 Woodside and the unions agreed to orders for the filing and serving of a statement of claim and defences.

On 5 February 2009 Woodside and the respondents settled the proceedings. The company’s application was discontinued on the basis that each of the respondents filed in the court an undertaking to refrain from future industrial action on the project. This was without prejudice to the ABCC’s right to bring later civil penalty proceedings arising out of the same facts.

Court documents

No court documents available