The decision hands employers in project-based industries a significant win
An all-casual workforce can legitimately approve an enterprise agreement, the Fair Work Commission Full Bench has ruled, handing employers a significant win.
The December 2025 decision in Innovative Asset Solutions Pty Ltd Trading as IAS v The Australian Workers' Union offers welcome clarity for HR professionals grappling with enterprise bargaining in industries where casual employment dominates.
At the heart of the dispute was a question relevant to project-based industries: can a group of casual workers genuinely agree to terms that will also bind future permanent employees?
Commissioner Lim thought not. In March 2025, she refused to approve the IAS Enterprise Agreement 2024, concluding that the 46 casual employees who voted could not adequately represent the interests of full-time and part-time workers the agreement was designed to cover. The company, which provides industrial maintenance services to the oil and gas and mining sectors, appealed.
The Full Bench saw things differently.
The panel found the Commissioner had fixated on the casual status of the voters while overlooking evidence about who these workers actually were. Sample resumes tendered during the original hearing revealed employees with extensive experience across multiple industries and trade qualifications spanning mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation disciplines. The resumes also indicated roles that could be presumed to be permanent positions with previous employers.
That history matters, the Full Bench determined. When assessing whether a voting group can speak for a broader workforce, the Commission may consider what employees bring from their entire working lives, not merely their current job title.
The Full Bench also made clear that the Statement of Principles on Genuine Agreement is not a box-ticking exercise. Failing to meet every criterion does not automatically doom an agreement.
For IAS, the ruling validated a business reality common across the resources sector. The company argued, and the Full Bench accepted, that the peaks and troughs inherent in contract maintenance work explained why its workforce happened to be entirely casual when the vote occurred. That circumstance alone should not render an agreement illegitimate.
The Full Bench acknowledged the appeal raised issues of wider importance for employers in project-driven industries where workforce composition fluctuates with the work itself.
The matter is not entirely settled. The Full Bench sent several questions back for determination, including whether IAS adequately explained the agreement's terms to employees and whether it passes the better off overall test. But on the central question of whether casual workers can genuinely agree to an enterprise agreement covering permanent roles, the answer is now yes, provided the evidence supports their capacity to do so.
The appeal was heard in Melbourne on 19 June 2025, with the decision handed down on 19 December 2025.
The takeaway for HR professionals: when pursuing enterprise agreement approval with a casual workforce, keep records of employees' prior work history, skills, and qualifications—it could prove decisive.
