Australian Red Cross Society v Queensland Nurses' Union of Employees

The Federal Court of Australia was asked to consider an appeal by the Australian Red Cross Society and two of its employees against a decision by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The Federal Circuit Court had found that the appellants had contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in their conduct against an employee, Ms Sandi Emblem. The Federal Circuit Court made declarations regarding the contraventions and set a date for a hearing on penalty and compensation. The appellants sought a stay of these orders, arguing that the penalty hearing would result in unnecessary costs and inefficient use of court resources. The appellants also filed an interlocutory application seeking a stay of the penalty hearing orders in the Federal Circuit Court. The Federal Court considered the appeal and the interlocutory application, focusing on whether leave to appeal was required and the desirability of fragmenting proceedings. The Court found that the declarations made at the end of the first stage of the trial were interlocutory in nature and that leave to appeal was required. However, the Court proceeded with the hearing of the interlocutory application, considering the substance of the stay application without factoring in the additional hurdle that leave to appeal would potentially pose. The Court ultimately refused the application for a stay of the penalty hearing orders. The Court considered the potential delay in referring the matter to a duty judge and the impact on the appellants' ability to comply with the Federal Circuit Court's timetabling orders. Despite this, the Court proceeded with the hearing of the interlocutory application, and the respondent agreed not to take issue with the appellants' failure to comply with the Federal Circuit Court's timetabling orders pending the determination of the stay application by the Federal Court. The Court made an order to the effect that the notice of appeal was taken to be an application for leave to appeal, and the application for a stay of the penalty hearing orders was refused. Costs were reserved, and the parties were required to advise the Court on the issue of costs or a timetable for short written submissions on that issue.