Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union - Victorian and Tasmanian Authorities and Services Branch

[2025] FWC 2550

[2025] FWC 2550

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.512 - Application for a right of entry permit

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union - Victorian and Tasmanian Authorities and Services Branch

(RE2025/740)

COMMISSIONER TRAN MELBOURNE, 3 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application by ASU for issue of right of entry permit for Ms Carol Jane Ransley – satisfied that fit and proper person – permit issued

1. The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical & Services Union (ASU) has applied to the Fair Work Commission under s 512 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for an entry permit for Ms Carol Jane Ransley. Ms Ransley holds the position of ASU Organiser. The ASU is a registered organisation under the Act.

Legislation

1. Section 512 of the Act provides that the Commission may issue an entry permit to an official of an organisation if the Commission is satisfied that the official is a fit and proper person. The organisation must make an application for an entry permit. In deciding whether the official is a fit and proper person, the Commission must take into account the permit qualification matters in s 513 of the Act.

1. The provisions relating to entry permits are contained within Part 3-4 of the Act, which deals with “the rights of officials of organisations who hold entry permits to enter premises for purposes related to their representative roles.” Those purposes include representing their members, holding discussions with potential members, and investigating suspected contraventions of the Act, other fair work instruments (such as enterprise agreements and awards) and State or Territory occupational health and safety laws. The objects of Part 3-4 require a balance of those rights with the rights of employees to receive information and representation at work, and the rights of occupiers of premises and employers to go about their business without undue inconvenience.

Permit Qualification Matters

1. Ms Natasha Wark, Branch Secretary of the ASU Victorian and Tasmanian Authorities Services Branch and member of the ASU’s Committee of Management, and Ms Ransley filed declarations in the Commission’s prescribed form.

1. The declarations satisfy me that:

·   Ms Ransley has completed appropriate training about the rights and responsibilities of a permit holder, by completing a right of entry training course conducted by an approved training provider on 18 July 2025.

·   Ms Ransley has not been convicted of an offence against industrial law.

·   Ms Ransley has not been convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory or a foreign country that involved entry onto premises, fraud or dishonesty, or intentional use of violence against another person, or intentional damage or destruction to property.

·   Neither Ms Ransley nor any other person has been ordered to pay a penalty under the Act or any other industrial law in relation to any actions of Ms Ransley.

·   Ms Ransley has not had a permit issued under the Act or a similar law of the Commonwealth’s revoked, suspended or made subject to conditions; and

·   Ms Ransley has not had a permit issued under a State’s or Territory’s industrial laws or occupational health and safety laws cancelled, suspended or subject to conditions, nor has Ms Ransley been disqualified from exercising or applying for a permit under a State’s or Territory’s industrial laws or occupational health and safety laws.

Any other relevant matters

1. Ms Ransley and Ms Wark declared that there were no other matters that were relevant to whether Ms Ransley is a fit and proper person.

1. Ms Ransley has previously held an entry permit, which has been returned to the Commission.

Matters I did not have regard to

1. In her declaration, Ms Ransley disclosed a matter that did not need to be disclosed (see s 513(2) of the Act and s 85ZV of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)). I have not had regard to that disclosure in assessing whether Ms Ransley is a fit and proper person.

Conclusion

1. Taking into account all the permit qualifications matters, I am satisfied that Ms Ransley is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. I have considered whether to impose conditions on an entry permit to be issued to Ms Ransley and conclude that no conditions should be imposed. I am satisfied that I should exercise my discretion to issue an entry permit to Ms Ransley.

COMMISSIONER

Determined on the papers

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR791210>