Federal Court Clears Remote Crane Operation at DP World Fremantle
30 Second Takeaway
DP World has secured a Federal Court declaration allowing it to proceed with plans to move ship to shore crane operators from elevated crane cabins into a remote operating room at its Fremantle container terminal in Western Australia. The Court found that the project does not constitute automation under the relevant provisions of the DP World Fremantle Enterprise Agreement 2024 because operators will continue to exercise manual control, skill and judgement. The decision does not remove DP World’s separate consultation obligations. It does, however, mean the company is not required to treat the project as a full automation programme under Appendix 4 of the current agreement.
Remote Operation Plan Can Proceed
DP World plans to move its ship to shore crane operators from cabins approximately 38 metres above the wharf to remote operating desks in a nearby building within the Fremantle terminal precinct. Operators will continue to control the same cranes manually using replicated joysticks and controls. Instead of looking directly through the crane cabin windows, operators will monitor container movements through multiple camera feeds and supporting digital systems.
The proposed operating arrangement includes:
Replicated crane controls and joysticks
Closed circuit camera feeds
Remote operating desks
Enhanced LiDAR scanning
Anti sway assistance
Soft landing technology
Optical character recognition
Existing operator licensing requirements
Continued manual control by crane drivers
The cranes themselves will not be replaced as part of the project.
Federal Court Rejects Automation Classification
The case was decided by Justice Katrina Banks-Smith in the Federal Court of Australia on 20 July 2026. The proceeding was formally titled DP World (Fremantle) Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union [2026] FCA 944.
The dispute centred on whether the remote crane project triggered the automation procedures contained in Appendix 4 of the DP World Fremantle Enterprise Agreement 2024.
The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, through its Maritime Union of Australia division, argued that the project amounted to automation and represented a significant change to the terminal’s mode of operation. DP World maintained that the project remained a manually controlled crane operation because operators would continue to make decisions and control crane movements.
The Court accepted that distinction.
Operators Retain Manual Control
A central issue was the level of human control retained under the proposed system.
Crane drivers will continue to:
Initiate crane movements
Control hoisting and lowering
Manage trolley travel
Position containers
Respond to changing operating conditions
Exercise judgement throughout the lifting cycle
Stop movement by releasing the controls
The remote desks will reproduce the controls currently used inside the crane cabins.
The Court determined that the continuing use of operator skill, judgement and active input was inconsistent with classifying the project as an automatic or automated process.
Driver assistance systems will support the operator, but they will not take responsibility for the complete crane cycle.
Assistance Technology Does Not Replace the Operator
The proposed system incorporates several technologies designed to provide information or movement assistance.
LiDAR scanning can create a detailed view of the crane’s operating environment and identify the position of containers and surrounding objects.
Anti sway assistance can help control movement of the suspended container as the crane accelerates, travels and slows.
Soft landing technology assists with the controlled placement of containers onto a ship, vehicle or stack.
Optical character recognition can identify and verify container numbers through camera images.
These systems can reduce repetitive tasks or provide additional operating information, but the crane driver remains responsible for controlling the lift.
The Court identified optical character recognition as introducing a limited automated element because it replaces part of the container verification process previously completed manually by a foreman. That element was not sufficient to classify the complete project as automation.
Union Argued the Change Triggered Appendix 4
The Maritime Union of Australia, part of the CFMEU, argued that the project represented a significant change to the terminal’s mode of operation. The union maintained that the driver assistance systems assumed part of the operator’s function and that the project could represent a step towards greater automation of crane driver and foreman roles. Appendix 4 of the enterprise agreement establishes a dedicated process for automation related change.
That process requires:
Discussions to begin before the planned operating date
Consultation over affected roles
Consideration of rosters and labour arrangements
Discussion of potential redundancies
A formal dispute resolution process
Binding arbitration if agreement cannot be reached
The union argued that DP World should be required to follow this process for the remote crane project.
Court Found Appendix 4 Is Limited to Automation
DP World argued that Appendix 4 did not apply because the project was neither automated nor a sufficiently significant change. The Court rejected one part of DP World’s interpretation, finding that the phrase “mode of operation” was not limited to landside equipment such as forklifts and internal transfer vehicles.
However, the Court agreed that Appendix 4, when read as a whole, applies specifically to significant changes involving automation. Because the remote crane drivers will retain active control, the Court found the project did not fall within that category.
The ruling means DP World is not required to use the additional automation process contained in Appendix 4 for this particular project.
Decision Is Specific to the Enterprise Agreement
The judgment does not establish that every remote crane operation is legally distinct from automation.
Its effect depends on:
The wording of the enterprise agreement
The technical design of the proposed system
The functions retained by the operator
The extent of driver assistance
The effect on employment
The evidence presented to the Court
A different project involving autonomous crane cycles, substantially reduced human control or workforce reductions would require separate consideration. The ruling is therefore specific to DP World’s proposed Fremantle system and the applicable provisions of its current enterprise agreement.
Consultation Requirements Remain
The Court’s decision does not remove DP World’s broader obligation to consult affected employees. Clause 45 of the enterprise agreement separately requires notification and consultation when the company has made a definite decision to introduce changes to production, programmes, organisation, structure or technology that are likely to have significant effects on employees.
DP World made its definite decision to proceed with the remote crane project on 2 February 2026 and informed employees and the union the following day.
The company must continue to comply with any applicable consultation requirements as implementation moves forward.
The difference is that the project does not have to pass through the more extensive automation procedure established by Appendix 4.
No Current Crane Driver Redundancies Planned
Evidence presented to the Court indicated that DP World does not expect any current crane driver or foreman to be made redundant because of the remote operation project. The company also said the change would not reduce the number of operators required for the cranes or alter the established manning arrangements and rosters. Crane drivers will retain their high risk work licences.
DP World acknowledged that a reduction in labour hours could occur among casual or supplementary workers, but said reducing labour was not the objective of the project.
The proposed system changes where the crane driver works, rather than eliminating the crane driver’s function.
Operator Role Moves From Cab to Control Room
Under the existing arrangement, crane operators work from cabins mounted high on the ship to shore cranes. The cabin gives the operator a direct view down towards the vessel, quay and suspended container. It also requires the driver to access and remain within the elevated structure during the shift.
The remote operating room relocates the driver to a ground based workplace where crane movements are viewed through cameras and digital displays. A remote station can provide several camera angles rather than relying on one physical viewing position.
The arrangement can also change the operator’s exposure to:
Working at height
Crane vibration
Repetitive movement
Weather conditions
Access stairs and lifts
Extended periods inside the crane structure
Any safety and ergonomic benefits depend on the design of the control room, screen arrangement, workstation, camera system and operating procedures.
Remote Operation Is Not Fully Autonomous Operation
Remote operation and automation are related technologies, but they do not describe the same operating model. Under remote manual operation, a human operator remains directly responsible for crane movement. The operator uses controls located away from the crane and receives visual information through cameras and sensors.
Under automated operation, software controls a greater proportion of the crane cycle with limited human intervention. An operator can supervise the system or intervene when required, but does not manually command every principal movement.
The Fremantle proposal remains remote manual operation because the crane driver continues to operate the joysticks and control the crane. This distinction formed the foundation of the Federal Court’s decision.
Existing Cranes Will Be Retrofitted
DP World’s plan involves adapting its existing ship to shore cranes rather than replacing them with new automated units. The retrofit will connect each crane with the remote operating room and supporting visual systems.
A remote crane installation requires reliable communication between:
Crane control systems
Operating desks
Camera networks
Position sensors
Safety systems
Assistance technology
Terminal communications
Emergency stop functions
Loss of an essential control or visual connection must be addressed through the system’s safety design and operating procedures. The crane is expected to stop if the operator releases the joystick controls.
Busan Provides the Operating Model
The Fremantle project is based on a remote crane system DP World has already implemented at its terminal in Busan, South Korea. DP World has converted 22 ship to shore cranes at Busan to remote operation. The experience gained from that project formed part of the evidence considered during the Federal Court proceeding.
Justice Banks-Smith accepted evidence from a DP World crane training manager who had operated the remote technology and participated in its implementation at Busan.
The Busan system demonstrated how conventional operator functions could be transferred from elevated cabins to a control room while keeping crane drivers directly involved in each movement.
Fremantle Cranes Handle Container Transfers
Ship to shore cranes transfer shipping containers between vessels and the terminal.
A typical operating cycle involves:
Positioning the spreader above a container
Connecting the spreader to the corner castings
Unlocking the container from its position
Hoisting it clear of the vessel or quay
Moving the trolley between ship and shore
Controlling load sway
Lowering the container
Confirming its position
Releasing the spreader
The operator must coordinate these movements while monitoring personnel, equipment, vessel structures and changing load conditions. Remote operation transfers the visual and control interface to a separate workstation, but the physical lifting cycle remains unchanged.
Productivity Improvement Forms Part of the Plan
Evidence before the Court indicated that DP World hopes the remote crane project will improve productivity by approximately 1.6 gross container moves per hour. Remote operating rooms can allow operators to work within a standardised environment supported by multiple camera views and assistance systems. The system could also reduce the time associated with accessing elevated crane cabins or moving between cranes.
The productivity figure remains a project expectation rather than a confirmed operating result at Fremantle. Actual performance will depend on implementation, training, equipment reliability, vessel conditions and the wider terminal operation.
Ruling Could Be Relevant at Other Australian Terminals
The judgment noted that enterprise agreements containing provisions in relevantly similar terms apply at DP World terminals in:
Port Botany, New South Wales
West Swanson, Victoria
Fisherman Islands, Queensland
The ruling clarifies the interpretation of the Fremantle agreement, but any project at another terminal would still need to be considered against its own technical design, workforce effects and applicable agreement. The decision is relevant because it establishes that relocating an operator away from the machine does not automatically make the process automated. The decisive issue is whether meaningful human control, input, skill and judgement remain part of the operating process.
About DP World Fremantle
DP World Fremantle operates a container terminal at North Quay in the Port of Fremantle, the principal port serving Western Australia. The terminal provides access to Perth and the state’s industrial, agricultural and mining regions. Its facilities include container berths, ship to shore cranes, landside cargo handling equipment and connections with Western Australia’s road and rail freight networks.
DP World lists the terminal as having:
A terminal area of approximately 37.5 hectares
Three berths
Approximately 929 metres of quay
Post Panamax ship to shore cranes
Access to rail infrastructure
A water depth of approximately 14 metres
Terminal website: DP World Fremantle
About DP World
DP World is an international ports, terminals and supply chain company headquartered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Its operations cover container terminals, marine services, freight forwarding, contract logistics, economic zones and inland transport.
The group operates a global network connecting ports with road, rail, warehouse and distribution services. DP World’s Australian terminal network includes operations at Fremantle, Port Botany, Fisherman Islands and West Swanson.
Company website: www.dpworld.com
About the Maritime Union of Australia
The Maritime Union of Australia represents workers across ports, stevedoring, shipping, towage, offshore energy and related maritime industries. The MUA operates as a division of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union.
Its members include crane drivers, foremen and other employees working at Australian container terminals. The union represented the employee position in the dispute over whether DP World’s remote crane project activated the automation provisions of the Fremantle enterprise agreement.
Union website: www.mua.org.au
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Federal Court decide?
The Court declared that DP World’s proposed remote ship to shore crane project at Fremantle does not constitute automation under Appendix 4 of the current enterprise agreement.
What is the case citation?
The decision is DP World (Fremantle) Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union [2026] FCA 944.
Who decided the case?
The judgment was delivered by Justice Katrina Banks-Smith on 20 July 2026.
Will the cranes operate without drivers?
No. Licensed crane drivers will continue to control the cranes manually using joysticks at remote operating desks.
Where will the operators work?
Operators will move from cabins approximately 38 metres above the wharf to a nearby operating room within the terminal precinct.
What will operators use to see the load?
They will use closed circuit camera feeds and supporting systems including LiDAR, anti sway assistance and soft landing technology.
Is remote operation the same as automation?
No. Remote operation changes where the operator is located. Automation transfers a greater proportion of operational control from the human operator to a machine or software system.
Will DP World remove crane operator jobs?
DP World told the Court that no current crane driver or foreman is expected to be made redundant and that the number of operators and existing rosters will remain unchanged.
Does the ruling end consultation with employees?
No. DP World remains subject to separate consultation requirements under the enterprise agreement.
Where has DP World used this technology before?
DP World has implemented a similar remote operating system across 22 ship to shore cranes in Busan, South Korea.
Does the judgment apply to every remote crane project?
No. The decision concerns the specific Fremantle proposal and the wording of the applicable enterprise agreement. Other projects would need to be assessed on their own facts.
