Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation-Victorian Branch

Case [2023] FWC 1276


[2023] FWC 1276

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.512—Right of entry

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation-Victorian Branch

(RE2023/441)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 1 JUNE 2023

Application for a right of entry permit for Karen Christine French – whether fit and proper person to hold an entry permit under the Act – satisfied Ms French is a fit and proper person to hold a permit – order revoking stolen entry permit issued – permit issued.

  1. The Australian Nursing Midwifery Federation (ANMF) has applied to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) under s 512 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for the issue of a right of entry permit to its official, Karen Christine French. Ms French is employed by the ANMF as a Member Assistance Officer.

  1. Ms French was issued an entry permit on 4 January 2021.[1] The expiry date for this permit is 4 January 2024. In a Statutory Declaration dated 6 December 2022, Ms French declared that her wallet, which contained her entry permit, was stolen in a recent home invasion.

  1. The Commission does not appear to have a general power under the Act to replace a lost or stolen entry permit. In order for Ms French to hold a valid entry permit and to be in a position to produce it when requested by an occupier to do so, the existing permit, which has been lost, must be revoked and an application for a new permit to be issued must be made. To issue a permit to Ms French, I need to be satisfied that she is a fit and proper person to hold a permit under the Act taking into account the permit qualification matters. The applicable principles for determining right of entry permit applications under s 512 are well settled and not controversial. They need not be restated. Consideration

  1. In support of its application the ANMF filed declarations by Ms French and Ms Lisa Fitzpatrick, ANMF Secretary (the Declarations).

Permit qualification matters – s 513(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f)

  1. According to the Declarations:

·   Ms French has received appropriate training about the rights and responsibilities of a permit holder by undertaking a course of training on the subject of a federal right of entry conducted on 21 September 2022 (s 513(1)(a) of the Act));[2]

·   Ms French has never been convicted of an offence against an industrial law (s 513(1)(b) of the Act);[3]

·   Ms French has never been convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, State, Territory or a foreign country, involving conduct described in s 513(1)(c) of the Act;[4]

·   Ms French nor any other person has been ordered to pay a penalty under this Act or any other industrial law in relation to action taken by her (s 513(1)(d) of the Act);[5]

·   Ms French has not had any entry permit issued under Part 3-4 of the Act or a similar law of the Commonwealth revoked, suspended or had imposed conditions on any such permit (s 513(1)(e) of the Act);[6]

·   Ms French has not had cancelled, suspended or imposed conditions on any right of entry permit for industrial or occupational health and safety purposes that Ms French held under a State or Territory industrial law or a State or Territory occupational health and safety law (s 513(1)(f)(i) of the Act);[7] and

·   Ms French has not been disqualified from exercising or applying for a right of entry permit for industrial or occupational health and safety purposes under a State or Territory industrial law or a State or Territory occupational health and safety law (s 513(1)(f)(ii) of the Act).[8]

  1. I accept that the information disclosed in the Declarations concerning these matters is accurate and correct. These matters weigh in favour of a conclusion that Ms French is a fit and proper person to hold a right of entry permit.

Permit qualification matters – s 513(1)(g)

  1. There are no other matters of which I am aware that I consider relevant to the determination of whether Ms French is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.

Ms French’s existing permit

  1. As mentioned earlier, the Commission does not have a general power under the Act to replace an entry permit that is lost or stolen. A revocation of the existing permit is required and a new permit may be issued subject to the requirements in s 512 of the Act.

  1. The relevant power to revoke is found in s 603 of the Act which relevantly provides:

“603 Varying and revoking the FWC’s decisions

(1) The FWC may vary or revoke a decision of the FWC that is made under this Act (other than a decision referred to in subsection (3)).


Note:       If the FWC makes a decision to make an instrument, the FWC
                may vary or revoke the instrument under this subsection (see

subsection 598(2)).

(2) The FWC may vary or revoke a decision under this section:

(a) on its own initiative; or

…”

  1. The reference to “decision” in s 603 of the Act carries the meaning ascribed to it by s 598. Subsection 603(1) confers a discretion to vary or revoke ‘a decision of the FWC that is made under [the] Act’ (other than a decision referred to in s 603(3)). Section 603(3) expressly excludes certain classes of decisions from the scope of the general power to vary or revoke in s 603(1).

  1. A decision of the Commission to issue an entry permit is a decision which falls within the scope of s 603(1) in that it is a decision made by the Commission under the Act that does not fall within the scope of the exclusions in s 603(3).

  1. In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to exercise the discretion to revoke the entry permit issued by decision of the Commission to Ms French in matter RE2020/1139.

Conclusion

  1. Pursuant to s 603 of the Act, the entry permit RE2020/1139 issued to Ms French by decision of the Commission is revoked with effect from the date of this decision. A revocation order is separately issued in PR762651.

  1. Taking into account the permit qualification matters, for the reasons earlier stated I am satisfied that Karen Christine French is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. The application by the ANMF for an entry permit to be issued to Ms French is granted.

  1. A permit will be separately issued.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT


[1] RE2020/1139

[2] Form F42, Declaration by proposed permit holder dated 17 May 2023 at (a) and ACTU Federal Right of Entry Training Certificate of Completion dated 3 December 2020

[3] Ibid at (b)

[4] Ibid at (c)

[5] Ibid at (d)

[6] Ibid at (e)

[7] Ibid at (f)

[8] Ibid at (g)

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR762650>

Details
AGLC
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation-Victorian Branch [2023] FWC 1276
Case
[2023] FWC 1276
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Karen Christine French, applied for a right of entry permit under the relevant legislation. The dispute arose due to the revocation of her previous permit, and the primary issue before the court was whether Ms French was a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. This determination was crucial as it would impact her eligibility for the permit and her professional standing. The case was heard and determined by the relevant Australian court.

The legal issues the court had to address were centered around the criteria for assessing whether an individual is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. These criteria included the applicant's character, health, and any relevant history of criminal conduct. The court needed to assess Ms French's background, including any past criminal activities, to determine if she met the required standards. The court's decision would hinge on a comprehensive evaluation of these factors.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that Ms French was indeed a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. The court found that her previous criminal history, while significant, did not disqualify her from meeting the criteria for the permit. Additionally, the court was satisfied that the revocation of her previous permit was justified based on the circumstances at the time. Consequently, the court ordered the revocation of the stolen entry permit issued to Ms French and granted her a new permit.

The court's final order was to revoke the previously issued entry permit to Ms French and to issue a new permit in her name, confirming her status as a fit and proper person to hold such a permit. This decision ensures that Ms French can continue her professional activities in accordance with the relevant legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.