Two veteran Shell employees working aboard the Prelude floating LNG facility off Western Australia have lost their attempt to secure substantially reduced working arrangements as they move toward retirement.
But the Fair Work Commission decision, handed down on 1 September 2026, is more nuanced than a simple finding that Shell was entitled to reject their requests.
The Commission dismissed the applications because it concluded that the workers’ requests had not been validly made under the relevant flexible-working provisions of Australia’s Fair Work Act. In other words, the Commission found that its jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute had not been properly enlivened. Come As You Are Songkran
That distinction matters.
The case was not simply a contest in which Shell persuaded the Commission that reduced working arrangements would be operationally impossible.
It turned principally on whether the statutory requirements enabling the Commission to intervene had been met.
Two long-serving Prelude workers seeking a transition toward retirement
The applicants were Sean Faherty and Stuart Dale, both employed by Shell Australia FLNG Pty Ltd.
Both began working for Shell at Prelude in 2014.
Faherty is a Panel Technician and Dale a Production Technician. Both are over 55, making age potentially relevant under the Fair Work Act provisions governing requests for flexible working arrangements. Come As You Are Songkran
Their workplace is no ordinary office.
Prelude is Shell’s enormous floating LNG facility in the Browse Basin off north-western Australia. Shell describes Prelude as the world’s largest floating facility and says it is intended to remain in operation for decades. Shell
The workers’ existing roster operates on a 15-week cycle:
three weeks on;
four weeks off;
three weeks on;
five weeks off.
The arrangement sought by Faherty and Dale would effectively have divided those offshore working periods between them.
Under the proposed arrangement, each man would work one three-week offshore swing during the 15-week cycle rather than both three-week swings.
The Commission recorded that this would mean each attending Prelude for a three-week working period roughly three or four times a year. Come As You Are Songkran
The decision also records that both presently earn approximately A$300,000 a year.
They proposed reducing their working time by approximately 50 per cent, with their salaries reduced correspondingly. Come As You Are Songkran
This was therefore not a request to maintain a full salary while halving attendance.
It was effectively a proposed job-share or semi-retirement arrangement.
Shell said there was a staffing problem
Shell’s central operational concern was coverage.
Faherty’s position required particular panel competencies, and Shell said that reducing his roster would leave the Utilities Area without sufficient suitably qualified personnel.
A Shell manager told Faherty that his proposal could potentially become workable if another employee were trained to the required panel competency.
According to the Commission decision, Shell contemplated that additional training being completed around September or October 2026. Come As You Are Songkran
Dale was likewise told that another employee would be required to cover the portion of his role left vacant.
The employees suggested an alternative involving another already trained worker, but Shell maintained that this would create a consequential shortage elsewhere on the shift. Come As You Are Songkran
Shell formally rejected Faherty’s proposal because, it said, there was no competent Panel Technician available to cover the gap created by the flexible roster.
Dale was told his request could not be approved because of resourcing constraints within the Utilities Area. Come As You Are Songkran
Those are recognisable operational arguments on a remote offshore installation where competency coverage can be safety-critical.
But they were not ultimately the decisive point.
Why the workers actually lost
The key legal issue concerned the wording of section 65 of the Fair Work Act.
An employee does not obtain an unrestricted statutory right to demand flexible working simply upon reaching 55.
The requested change must be made because of a circumstance identified by the legislation.
The Commission found that the connection between the workers reaching 55 and the particular arrangements they requested was insufficient.
Faherty said he wanted additional time away from work, including additional opportunities to visit siblings and family members.
He also indicated that if his flexible working request was not accepted he might eventually resign and rely partly upon investment income. Come As You Are Songkran
Dale described his objective as transitioning toward retirement and becoming accustomed both to longer periods at home and to living on a lower income.
His request also referred to continuing health issues following a back injury and the potential benefit of having greater access to physiotherapy while ashore. Come As You Are Songkran
Commissioner Hunt nevertheless concluded that the requests had not been validly made under the statutory provision.
The applications were therefore dismissed under section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act. Come As You Are Songkran
That is significantly different from a finding that flexible or semi-retirement working aboard Prelude is inherently unreasonable.
An unusual passage in the decision
One aspect of the ruling is likely to attract particular attention.
Dale had explained that part of the transition he wanted involved becoming accustomed to earning approximately A$150,000 rather than A$300,000 annually before retirement.
The Commission suggested there was nothing preventing him from placing part of his salary into another account and effectively putting it aside until required later. Come As You Are Songkran
Whatever one thinks of that observation, it illustrates the extent to which the Commission examined whether the particular personal reasons advanced genuinely established the statutory connection required by the Act.
The decision should therefore not be read simply as:
“Shell said no, and the Commission agreed.”
The legal reasoning is considerably narrower.
Prelude and industrial relations: this is not an isolated case
The dispute also arrives against a broader history of industrial-relations issues surrounding Prelude.
In August 2025, a Fair Work Commission Full Bench dealt with a long-running bargaining dispute involving Qube Offshore workers carrying out stores and logistics work aboard the facility.
Shell had previously employed workers directly for this work before outsourcing it to Qube in 2021.
The Commission made a notably direct observation about what followed.
It found that there was significant overlap between the work subsequently carried out by Qube employees and that previously undertaken by direct Shell employees.
It also found that the Shell employees had been paid more.
The Commission said a reduction in labour costs was “undoubtedly a key driver” behind Shell’s outsourcing decision. Fair Work Commission
That is unusually forthright language for an industrial tribunal.
The resulting dispute eventually became sufficiently entrenched for the Commission to impose an intractable bargaining workplace determination.
The Full Bench awarded significant wage increases and retrospective pay after finding that Qube workers had gone for an extended period without pay rises and were positioned toward the lower end of comparable industry remuneration. Fair Work Commission
Earlier Prelude disputes have also reached the Commission, including bargaining litigation involving Shell itself and offshore unions. Fair Work Commission
So the Faherty and Dale case is not occurring in an industrial-relations vacuum.
An ageing specialist workforce presents a real management issue
There is also a broader question here that goes well beyond these two men.
Highly experienced offshore oil and gas employees inevitably age.
Companies such as Shell depend upon specialist operators who may possess decades of practical plant knowledge.
At some point, employers face a choice.
They can retain those people through more flexible employment structures.
They can train replacements early enough to allow phased retirement.
Or they can risk experienced employees simply leaving.
Faherty himself specifically referred to his ability to continue passing knowledge and experience to newer operators while working a reduced roster. Come As You Are Songkran
That deserves consideration.
A worker who is ready to leave full-time offshore employment but willing to remain available on a reduced basis may represent retained institutional knowledge rather than merely an inconvenient staffing problem.
At the same time, Shell has an obvious countervailing obligation.
Prelude is a complex offshore hydrocarbon-processing facility operating hundreds of kilometres from shore. Shell cannot allow flexible working arrangements to leave critical positions without sufficient competent coverage.
Both considerations can be true simultaneously.
Shell still has a long-term need for Prelude
There is another reason this matters.
Shell is not preparing Prelude for imminent retirement.
The company continues to describe the facility as central to its Australian offshore gas portfolio.
The Crux project is intended to provide additional gas to Prelude and extend the useful life of the infrastructure. Shell describes Prelude as a multi-decade development. Shell
Australia’s offshore regulator NOPSEMA also accepted a revised Prelude environment plan in July 2026, with the facility remaining classified as an operating and producing asset. info.nopsema.gov.au
That means workforce succession, competency retention and eventual retirement arrangements are unlikely to disappear as issues.
They may become more important.
What the decision establishes — and what it does not
The safest conclusion from the Faherty and Dale case is therefore a limited one.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed these particular applications because it found that the flexible-working requests were not validly made within the statutory framework.
It did not establish a general rule that Prelude employees over 55 cannot work reduced rosters.
It did not rule that phased retirement at Prelude is operationally impossible.
And it did not decide that every refusal Shell made on staffing grounds was necessarily justified.
Indeed, the evidence suggests Shell itself contemplated that a flexible arrangement might become possible once another employee obtained the necessary competency.
The immediate dispute was lost by the two workers.
The underlying workforce question remains.
For an industrial facility that Shell intends to operate for many years yet, that question can be expressed quite simply:
how does Shell retain the knowledge of experienced offshore workers when those workers no longer want — or eventually are no longer able — to maintain the demanding full-time roster?
That is a problem which a jurisdictional ruling by the Fair Work Commission does not resolve.
Sources
