The Offshore Alliance (led by the Australian Workers’ Union) took to Facebook on 19 May 2025 to celebrate Monadelphous winning an offshore contract over competitor UGL. In its post, the Alliance hailed the outcome as a victory for unionised labour, claiming the Monadelphous deal was secured “on full union Offshore Hook Up & Commissioning EBA rates and conditions.”
However, closer scrutiny reveals that both contractors were operating under union-approved agreements, raising questions about the accuracy and intent of the Alliance’s messaging.
The Monadelphous MEA Pty Ltd Offshore Agreement 2024 was negotiated and signed by the AWU and ETU. In contrast, the UGL Offshore HUC Greenfields Agreement 2025 was signed by the AMWU and ETU—also a union agreement, contrary to the Alliance’s suggestion that UGL had engaged in “backdoor deals.”
The Alliance further claimed, “UGL’s backdoor deals with the AMWHO (who have no members working offshore on the West Coast) and the ETUWA don’t help their cause.” Yet, sources familiar with the negotiations confirm that both agreements were developed transparently, with all relevant unions, including the AWU, invited to participate. The Alliance ultimately chose not to engage in the process.
This raises a key question: why did the Alliance refuse to represent its members during these negotiations? Critics argue that the Alliance’s hostility toward UGL has reached the point where it may be compromising the interests of its own members. The tone and content of the Facebook post appear to reflect more of a vendetta than a commitment to fair representation.
If one were to rely solely on the Alliance’s commentary, it would be easy to assume that the UGL agreement was somehow substandard. But that narrative falls apart under scrutiny. The terms and conditions of the UGL agreement are—by and large—nearly identical to those of the Monadelphous agreement. In some respects, such as long service leave entitlements, the UGL agreement is more favourable.
To provide clarity, we will present a side-by-side comparison of key provisions from both agreements. Readers will also have the opportunity to view the full documents themselves.
We’re not here to tell you what to think. Our goal is to lay out the facts and let you decide.
| Full Time Ordinary Classification | ||
| Full Time Ordinary Classification | Day Shift Ordinary Hourly Rate of Pay | |
| Monadelphous | UGL | |
| Senior Trade | $ 84.59 | $ 84.59 |
| Trade / Technician | $ 82.41 | $ 82.41 |
| Multiskilled Services Technician | $ 80.14 | $ 80.14 |
| Services Technician | $ 77.85 | $ 77.85 |
| General Services | $ 70.71 | $ 70.71 |
Monadelphous – SCHEDULE 3. ANNUAL WAGE ESCALATIONS
Rate and Allowance Escalations
SCH 3 (1) From the first full pay period after 1 June 2025; 1 June 2026 and 1 June 2027, the hourly rates of pay in SCHEDULE 1 and allowances in SCHEDULE 2 of this Agreement will increase by the higher of:
- 3%; or
- the applicable Wage Price Index (WPI) as defined in Clause 4 – Definitions of this Agreement.
UGL – SCHEDULE 3. ANNUAL WAGE ESCALATIONS
Rate and Allowance Escalations
SCH 3 (1) From the first full pay period after 1 June 2025; 1 June 2026 and 1 June 2027, the hourly rates of pay in SCHEDULE 1 and SCHEDULE 4 and allowances in SCHEDULE 2 of this Agreement will increase by the higher of:
- 3%; or
- the applicable Wage Price Index (WPI) as defined in Clause 4 – Definitions of this Agreement.
Monadelphous – Clause 22 LONG SERVICE LEAVE
Where applicable, the provisions of the State or Territories Construction Industry Portable Long Service Leave Act, as amended from time to time, will be provided to Employees under this Agreement. Long service leave under this Agreement will be paid in line with the relevant MEA Pty Ltd Offshore Agreement 2024 25 State or Territory Long Service Leave Act. For the avoidance of doubt, under the current established Work Cycle (Cl.12.5(a)) the ordinary hours worked will be 228 hours for Full Time Employees, and under the current established Work Cycle (Cl.12.5(b)) the ordinary hours worked will be 152 hours for Full Time Employees.
UGL – Clause 22 LONG SERVICE LEAVE (More Beneficial)
Where applicable, the provisions of the State or Territories Construction Industry Portable Long Service Leave Act, as amended from time to time, will be provided to Employees under this Agreement. Long service leave under this Agreement will be paid in line with the relevant State or Territory Long Service Leave Act. For the avoidance of doubt, under the current established Work Cycle (Cl.12.5(a)) the ordinary hours worked will be 252 hours for Full Time Employees, and under the current established Work Cycle (Cl.12.5(b)) the ordinary hours worked will be 168 hours for Full Time Employees.
I think you get the point—there’s no need to list everything, because you can check for yourselves.
Update 24 May 2025
The Offshore Alliance’s recent statement regarding the withdrawal of UGL’s Hook-Up & Commissioning (HUC) Enterprise Agreement (EA) is riddled with factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
To set the record straight:
1. Scope of the Agreement Was Specific to the Scarborough Project
The EA in question was developed solely for the Scarborough Project. It was a Greenfields Agreement, legally confined to that project’s scope and timeframe. As UGL did not secure the relevant contract for that project, the agreement had no further practical application. Accordingly, there was no reason to proceed with approval of an EA that could not be implemented.
2. The Withdrawal Was Procedural, Not a “Backdown”
UGL’s decision to withdraw the application was a procedural and commercial decision based on the project outcome. It was not a consequence of any challenge by the Offshore Alliance, nor an admission of legal weakness. Claims to the contrary are pure fabrication.
3. Union Coverage and Representation
The EA was developed in consultation with unions that have legitimate coverage of specific classifications relevant to the Scarborough HUC scope. Any assertion that this was done “in secret” is false and deliberately misleading. Greenfields agreements are a standard, lawful industrial instrument used across the industry.
4. Offensive Language and Baseless Accusations
The Offshore Alliance’s use of terms like “industrial terrorists” and repeated personal attacks only serve to highlight the lack of substance in their argument. Resorting to inflammatory language does not change the facts: there was no “defeat” — simply a withdrawal of an agreement rendered moot by commercial circumstances.
5. Fabricated Narrative
Every key point raised by the Offshore Alliance in their statement is either a gross distortion or outright fabrication. The legal standing of the EA was never tested because there was no longer a need for it. Suggesting a legal “victory” over a withdrawn application is disingenuous at best.
