Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, Australian Government Employment v Canberra Commercial Development Authority - [1986] FCA 522

Re: ADMINISTRATIVE AND CLERICAL OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYMENT and HAROLD HIRD
And: THE CANBERRA COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; PETER WILENSKI; ROGER
BEALE; GRAHAM GLENN and THE HON. GORDON GLEN DENTON SCHOLES
No. NSW I 2 of 1986
Industrial Law
17 IR 376

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Evatt J.

CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law - Conciliation and Arbitration Act - Determination under Public Service Arbitration Act - deemed to be an Award under Conciliation and Arbitration Act - Canberra Commercial Development Authority party to determination - Right of Minister to abolish Authority under Commonwealth Functions (Statutes Review) Act 1981 - Inconsistency between term of an Award and provision of Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979 - Meaning of "with effect on and from" in s.7 of Commonwealth Functions (Statutes Review) Act.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 - ss. 4, 110, 118A

Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act (No. 2) 1983 - ss. 40, 43(2)(a)

Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979

Commonwealth Functions (Statutes Review) Act 1981

Public Service Arbitration Act 1920

Canberra Commercial Development Authority Ordinance 1974

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 - ss. 21, 32(1)

Public Service Act (Cth), 1922

Green v Philippine Consulate-General 1971 V.R. 12

Royal Australian Nursing Federation, Tasmanian Branch v Fawdry Full Court, Federal Court of Australia, 8 October 1986 (unreported)

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 7:11:1986

ORDER

The Application be dismissed.

There be no order as to costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

Questions having been raised by the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Australian Government Employment, (the organisation) an organisation of employees registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (the Act) and certain of its members on the one hand and such members' employer, the Canberra Commercial Development Authority (the Authority), on the other, regarding alleged agreements in respect of redundancy payments and arrangements said to have been offered to and accepted by those members on ceasing to be employed by the Authority, the organisation and the second named applicant, Harold Hird, a member of the organisation, made application to the Court seeking the following declarations:

A declaration that employees of the First Respondent are

entitled to redundancy payments and arrangements offered by the First Respondent which have been accepted by employees of the First Respondent and accepted by the Applicant, pursuant to the provisions of Determination No. 509 of 1977.

A declaration that the First Respondent is entitled to make

an offer of redundancy payments and arrangements to its employees such payments and arrangements being in terms agreed upon by the First Respondent, employees of the First Respondent and the first named Applicant.

A declaration that the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents

are not entitled or empowered to make any offers in relation to redundancy to employees of the First Respondent either in exercise of their powers and/or in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, Australian...

Details

AGLC: Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, Australian Government Employment & Anor v Canberra Commercial Development Authority & Ors [1986] FCA 522 (17 IR 376)
Case: [1986] FCA 522
Decision Date: 07 NOVEMBER 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, Australian Government Employment, filed an application against the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, seeking a ruling on the interpretation and application of several legislative provisions. The primary dispute revolved around the authority's status in relation to a determination under the Public Service Arbitration Act and its implications under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Additionally, the case examined the Minister's power to abolish the Authority pursuant to the Commonwealth Functions (Statutes Review) Act 1981, and the potential inconsistency between the terms of an award and the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Canberra Commercial Development Authority was indeed a party to the determination under the Public Service Arbitration Act and, if so, whether it was also bound by the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Furthermore, the court had to resolve the conflict between the term of an award and the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979. A critical aspect of the case was the interpretation of the phrase "with effect on and from" as used in section 7 of the Commonwealth Functions (Statutes Review) Act, particularly in the context of the Minister's authority to abolish the Authority.

The court found that the Canberra Commercial Development Authority was not a party to the determination under the Public Service Arbitration Act, and therefore, it was not bound by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The court also determined that there was no inconsistency between the terms of the award and the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979. Additionally, the court clarified that the phrase "with effect on and from" in section 7 of the Commonwealth Functions (Statutes Review) Act meant that the abolition of the Authority was effective from the date specified in the Minister's order. Based on these findings, the court dismissed the application and made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application be dismissed.

There be no order as to costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.