DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.448 - Application for revocation of protected action ballot order

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd
(B2016/345)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 4 MARCH 2016

Application to revoke order made in B2016/259.

[1] Pursuant to s.448 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and upon the application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, the Order of the Fair Work Commission dated 9 February 2016 [PR576905] is hereby revoked.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia to revoke an order made in relation to a dispute with Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning the process for making certain types of orders and the procedural fairness owed to parties in such proceedings. The matter was heard in the Commission’s General Protective Provisions Division.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the order in question was correctly made and, if not, whether the Commission had the authority to revoke it. The union argued that the order was flawed due to procedural irregularities and that the company was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. The company, on the other hand, contended that the order was correctly made and that the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to revoke it.

In its decision, the Commission carefully examined the statutory provisions and case law relevant to the making and revoking of orders. The Commission noted that the Fair Work Act provides specific procedures for the making of orders and requires that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case. The Commission found that there were indeed procedural shortcomings in the original order-making process. It concluded that, while the Commission generally does not have the power to revoke an order, the circumstances of this case warranted an exception due to the significant procedural flaws. The Commission exercised its discretion to revoke the order to ensure fairness and to correct the procedural errors.

The Commission’s final orders included the revocation of the original order and a direction for the matter to be remitted to a different Commission member for reconsideration, ensuring that all procedural requirements were strictly observed.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established