Full Bench found that the Commissioner alone was right to refer to the Swinburne explanatory memorandum, but that he had applied it too narrowly and that there was nothing wrong with the vote taking place when casual workers were not actually working or were being paid for the performance of the work. The Full Bench noted that if casual workers were denied the right to vote on this basis, it would have ”a clear impact on the manipulation of elections with this approach” [at paragraph 35]. The employees asked to approve the deal by voting for it were casual workers. They had accepted a continuing job at McDermott on an occasional basis. However, at the time of the vote, they were not actually busy or paid to carry out work and, on that basis, the Commissioner alone found that the agreement could not be approved. Casual workers may be allowed to vote on the approval of a company agreement. . . .