Community and Public Sector Union-PSU Group
[2022] FWC 3016
•14 NOVEMBER 2022
| [2022] FWC 3016 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.512—Right of entry
Community and Public Sector Union-PSU Group
(RE2022/1243)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 14 NOVEMBER 2022 |
Application for a right of entry permit for Melissa Anne Gregory – whether fit and proper person to hold an entry permit under the Act – satisfied Ms Gregory is a fit and proper person to hold a permit – order revoking lost entry permit issued – permit issued.
The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) 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, Melissa Anne Gregory. Ms Gregory is employed by the CPSU as a Field Organiser.
Ms Gregory was issued an entry permit on 19 August 2021.[1] The expiry date for this permit is 10 August 2024. In a Statutory Declaration dated 20 September 2022, Ms Gregory declared that the permit had been lost in the post. She explained that the permit was first sent to Mr Rob Alessi at the CPSU Melbourne office, and he subsequently sent it to Ms Gregory’s work office in Brisbane. She declared that she never received the permit at that address. Mr Alessi checked with Australia Post which advised that the permit was delivered. Ms Gregory declared that if she locates the permit in the future, she will return it to the Fair Commission as soon as possible.
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 Gregory 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 Gregory, I need to be satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold a permit under the Act taking into account the permit qualification matters.
Relevant statutory provisions and application
The applicable principles for determining right of entry permit applications under s.512 are well settled and not controversial. Shortly stated, the fitness and propriety of a proposed permit holder the subject of an application for a permit is assessed taking into account the permit qualification matters set out in s.513(1) having regard to the rights a permit holder can exercise under Part 3-4 of the Act, the limitations on and conditions attaching to the exercise of those rights, and responsibilities that are exercised in relation to those rights. The focus of the Commission’s inquiry is not whether the proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person in some abstract sense. The inquiry is whether a proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit, and to exercise the powers, functions and responsibilities attached to holding a permit.[2] The Commission is required to ascertain, at the time the application is determined, whether the proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.
The permit qualification matters contained in s.513(1) are mandatory considerations which must be taken into account and each given appropriate weight. A statutory requirement that a matter be taken into account means that the matter is a ‘relevant consideration’ in the sense discussed in Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Another v Peko-Wallsend Limited and Others,[3] that is, it is a matter which the decision maker is bound to take into account. The obligation to take into account the matters set out at s.513 means that each of the matters must be treated as a matter of significance in the decision-making process,[4] which must be evaluated and accorded appropriate weight.[5]
The weight given to a particular matter is ultimately a matter for the Commission, however in ascribing weight to each matter care should be taken to ensure that a relevant factor of great importance is given adequate weight and that excessive weight to a relevant factor of no great importance is not ascribed.[6]
Having regard to the structure and content of s.513, in deciding whether a proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit, all of the permit qualification matters identified in s.513(1) of the Act must be taken into account. The absence of, for example, a conviction of an official of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth relating to or involving fraud or dishonesty, is relevant in the assessment, just as a conviction of the official for such an offence would be. The absence of such a conviction must be accorded appropriate weight.
Section 513(1)(g) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account any other matter it considers relevant. A matter will be relevant if it can rationally affect the assessment of whether the proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. Matters that may be relevant and therefore fall to be considered under s.513(1)(g) are matters that relate to the personal characteristics of the proposed permit holder and are pertinent to the discharge of the functions and exercise of the rights and privileges associated with holding a permit.
I turn to consider the application.
Consideration
In support of its application the CPSU filed declarations by Ms Gregory and Ms Melissa Ann Maggioros (Payne), CPSU-PSU Group, Deputy National President (the Declarations).
Permit qualification matters – s.513(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f)
According to the Declarations:
· Ms Gregory 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));[7]
· Ms Gregory has never been convicted of an offence against an industrial law (s.513(1)(b) of the Act);[8]
· Ms Gregory 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;[9]
· Neither Ms Gregory 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 him (s.513(1)(d) of the Act);[10]
· Ms Gregory 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);[11]
· Ms Gregory has not had cancelled, suspended or imposed conditions on any right of entry permit for industrial or occupational health and safety purposes that Ms Gregory 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);[12] and
· Ms Gregory 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).[13]
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 Gregory is a fit and proper person to hold a right of entry permit.
Permit qualification matters – s.513(1)(g)
There are no other matters of which I am aware that I consider relevant to the determination of whether Ms Gregory is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.
Ms Gregory’s existing permit
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.
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 (seesubsection 598(2)).
(2) The FWC may vary or revoke a decision under this section:
(a) on its own initiative; or
…”
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).
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).
In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to exercise the discretion to revoke the entry permit issued by decision of the Commission to Ms Vinas-Wilson in matter RE2021/800.
Conclusion
Pursuant to s.603 of the Act, the entry permit RE2021/772 issued to Ms Gregory by decision of the Commission is revoked with effect from the date of this decision. A revocation order is separately issued in PR747907.
Taking into account the permit qualification matters, for the reasons earlier stated I am satisfied that Melissa Anne Gregory is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. The application by the CPSU for an entry permit to be issued to Ms Gregory is granted.
A permit will be separately issued.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] RE2021/772.
[2] Maritime Union of Australia [2014] FWCFB 1973 at [23]; Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, [2015] FWC 1522 at [32]
[3] [1986] HCA 40, (1986) 162 CLR 24; see also Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372 at 379; Ho v Professional
Services Review Committee No 295 [2007] FCA 388 at [23]-[26] and cited in Hasim v Attorney-General of the
Commonwealth [2013] FCA 1433, (2013) 218 FCR 25 at [65]
[4] Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Minister for Environment (No 3) (1997) 77 FCR 153; Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission v Leelee Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1121; Edwards v Giudice [1999] FCA 1836 and National Retail
Association v Fair Work Commission [2014] FCAFC 118
[5] Nestle Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 16 FCR 167 at 184; (cited with approval by Hely J in Elias v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 123 FCR 499 at [62]
and by Katzmann J in Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Hamberger and Another (2011) 195 FCR 74
at [103])
[6] Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Another v Peko-Wallsend Limited and Others [1986] HCA 40, (1986) 162 CLR 24 at [15], p 41
[7] Form F42, Declaration by proposed permit holder dated 20 September 2022 at (a) and ACTU Federal Right of Entry Training Certificate of Completion dated 6 May 2021.
[8] Ibid at (b)
[9] Ibid at (c)
[10] Ibid at (d)
[11] Ibid at (e)
[12] Ibid at (f)
[13] Ibid at (g)
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR747905>
0
0
0