This case is a useful warning for employers dealing with enterprise agreements, restructures and employee voting. The dispute was not only about the words of an agreement. It was about the factual story behind approval: who was employed, who voted, what work they performed and what was or was not disclosed to the Fair Work Commission.
Kent argued the union's case should be struck out because the alleged non-disclosure was not enough to amount to fraud on the tribunal. The Full Court did not decide the final merits of the union's challenge. It decided that the pleading should survive at this stage because it had some chance of success and the primary judge had not erred by refusing to strike it out.
For business operators, the practical point is simple. If approval of a workplace instrument depends on employee voting and statutory satisfaction, treat the process like a compliance record. Do not leave gaps about who voted, whether they were genuinely employed, what information went to the Commission and who inside the business knew the relevant facts. A later challenge can become expensive even before the final issue is decided.