Aurizon Operations Limited v Cameron Webb - [2024] FWCFB 318

[2024] FWCFB 318

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.604—Appeal of decision

Aurizon Operations Limited

Cameron Webb

(C2024/1482)

VICE PRESIDENT ASBURY

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS
DEPUTY PRESIDENT WRIGHT

BRISBANE, 25 JULY 2024

Appeal against decisions [[2024] FWC 296 and [2024] FWC 513] of Deputy President Cross at Sydney on 5 February 2024 and 5 March 2024 in matter number C2022/130 – dispute settlement procedure in enterprise agreement – requirement to provide an employee against whom findings of misconduct were made with a copy of an investigation report – requirements of procedural fairness.

Introduction

Aurizon Operations Limited (Aurizon) arranged for an investigation to be conducted in relation to allegations against one of its employees, Mr Cameron Webb, who is a member of the Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union (RTBU). An investigation report was prepared by an external investigator, who found that Mr Webb had engaged in the conduct alleged against him. Aurizon accepted the findings of the investigator and invited Mr Webb to show cause as to why his employment should not be terminated.

On 9 January 2024, the RTBU filed an application (on behalf of Mr Webb) in the Fair Work Commission (Commission) under s 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for the Commission to deal with a dispute in relation to the investigation concerning Mr Webb. Aurizon objected to the application on the basis that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute because the relevant steps in the dispute resolution procedure in clause 54 of the Aurizon NSW Coal Operations Enterprise Agreement 2021 (Enterprise Agreement) had not been followed. Aurizon also contended that the investigation had already been completed, with the result that there was no utility in the relief sought by Mr Webb – access to the investigation report – because it was not relevant to, nor required for, Mr Webb to respond to Aurizon’s show cause letter.

Deputy President’s decisions

In his first decision, published on 5 February 2024,[1] Deputy President Cross concluded that the Commission had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute because the relevant steps of the dispute resolution procedure at clauses 54.1 and 54.2 of the Enterprise Agreement had been followed.[2] The Deputy President rejected Aurizon’s contention that the relief sought by Mr Webb was inconsistent with the requirement in the Enterprise Agreement that disciplinary inquiries and investigations be confidential.[3] The parties were directed by the Deputy President to confer about any outstanding issues concerning production and access to the investigation report by Mr Webb.[4]

Following publication of the First Decision, Aurizon resisted production of the investigation report to Mr Webb. The RTBU sought to have the matter relisted before the Deputy President. The RTBU also filed an application for an order for the production of documents, seeking production of the investigation report with the names of employee witnesses redacted.

On 14 February 2024, a hearing was held in relation to…

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 Aurizon Operations Limited v Cameron Webb

Details

AGLC: Aurizon Operations Limited v Cameron Webb [2024] FWCFB 318
Case: [2024] FWCFB 318
Decision Date: 25 JULY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aurizon Operations Limited has appealed against decisions made by Deputy President Cross at Sydney on 5 February 2024 and 5 March 2024, in matter number C2022/130. The dispute centres on a settlement procedure in an enterprise agreement and the necessity for Aurizon to provide an employee, Cameron Webb, with a copy of an investigation report against whom findings of misconduct were made. The crux of the appeal is the requirement for procedural fairness to be observed in this context.

The legal issues before the court were whether the enterprise agreement mandated that Aurizon provide Cameron Webb with a copy of the investigation report, and if so, whether the failure to do so constituted a breach of procedural fairness. The court was tasked with interpreting the terms of the enterprise agreement and determining whether the principles of procedural fairness were adhered to in the disciplinary process.

In its reasoning, the court found that the enterprise agreement did indeed require Aurizon to provide Cameron Webb with a copy of the investigation report. The court held that the principles of procedural fairness, as established in Australian administrative law, were not complied with by Aurizon when they failed to provide the report to Cameron Webb. The court concluded that this omission was a breach of the agreement and procedural fairness. As a result, the decisions of Deputy President Cross were upheld.

The final orders of the court affirmed the decisions of Deputy President Cross, finding that Aurizon was required to provide Cameron Webb with a copy of the investigation report and that the failure to do so constituted a breach of procedural fairness. The court's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in disciplinary processes as outlined in enterprise agreements.

Orders