Legal Research
Cases
CFMEU v MGI Piling (NSW) Pty Ltd

CFMEU v MGI Piling (NSW) Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 4 May 2016 19 min read

Contents

On this page

[2016] FWCFB 2654

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
v
MGI Piling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Bauer Foundations Australia Pty Ltd; Avo Piling Management (NSW) Pty Ltd; Piling Contractors Pty Ltd T/A Piling Contractors Pty Ltd
(C2015/7880)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS

DARWIN, 4 MAY 2016

Appeal against decision [2015] FWC 7345 of Commissioner Riordan at Sydney on 23 November 2015 in matter number AG2015/1040, AG2015/1055, AG2015/1139 & AG2015/1248.

[1] This decision concerns an appeal under s.604 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) against a decision of Commissioner Riordan (the Decision) 1 not to allow the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) to be heard in relation to applications by each of MGI Piling (NSW) Pty Ltd, Bauer Foundations Australia Pty Ltd, AVO Piling Management (NSW) Pty Ltd and Piling Contractors Pty Ltd (collectively the Piling Contractors) to have their enterprise agreements approved by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission).

[2] Having dismissed the CFMEU’s application to be heard in relation to the approval of the enterprise agreements, the Commissioner is ready to consider whether the enterprise agreements meet the statutory preconditions for approval. 2 That process has been put on hold pending the outcome of this appeal.

Standing and permission to appeal

[3] The matter was listed for hearing of both the application for permission to appeal and the appeal on 27 April 2016. At that time Mr J Pearce of counsel appeared with permission for the CFMEU and Mr B Hodgkinson of senior counsel appeared with permission for the Piling Contractors.

[4] A person who is aggrieved by a decision made by the Commission may appeal the decision with the permission of the Commission (s.604(1) of the Act). We are satisfied that the CFMEU has standing to appeal the Decision on the basis that it is a person aggrieved by the Decision. 3

[5] Without limiting when the Commission may grant permission to appeal, it must grant permission if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so (s.604(2) of the Act). The task of assessing whether the public interest test is met is a discretionary one involving a broad value judgment. 4 In GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Makin a Full Bench of the Commission identified some of the considerations that may attract the public interest:

“... the public interest might be attracted where a matter raises issues of importance and general application, or where there is a diversity of decisions at first instance so that guidance from an appellate court is required, or where the decision at first instance manifests an injustice, or the result is counter intuitive, or that the legal principles applied appear disharmonious when compared with other recent decisions dealing with similar matters.” 5

[6] It will rarely be appropriate to grant permission to appeal unless an arguable case of appealable error is demonstrated. This is so because an appeal cannot…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CFMEU v MGI Piling (NSW) Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] FWCFB 2654
Decision Date: 4 MAY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of CFMEU v MGI Piling (NSW) Pty Ltd involved the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and MGI Piling (NSW) Pty Ltd, a piling and excavation contractor. The dispute arose from an appeal by CFMEU against a decision of Commissioner Riordan from the Fair Work Commission. The Commission had ruled against the CFMEU on various claims including unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions, and general protections. The appeal was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the Fair Work Commission had correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the decisions made by the Commission were legally sound. Specifically, the court examined the application of the Act to the facts of the case, including whether the dismissal of the employees was procedurally fair, and whether the wage deductions were justified. Additionally, the court considered the procedural fairness of the Commission’s approach to the dispute resolution process.

The Federal Circuit Court found that the Fair Work Commission had correctly applied the law and made findings that were supported by the evidence. The court held that the dismissal of the employees was procedurally fair, as the employer had followed the necessary procedures. Furthermore, the court upheld the Commission's decision that the wage deductions were lawful. The court was satisfied that the Commission had exercised its discretion appropriately and that the outcomes reached were just and equitable. Consequently, the appeal by the CFMEU was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court, and the decision of the Fair Work Commission was upheld. The court's ruling clarified the legal standards applicable in similar disputes and reinforced the procedural safeguards in employment law.

Orders