Community and Public Sector Union v Telstra Corporation Ltd (No 2)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CPSU, The Community and Public Sector Union v
Telstra Corporation Ltd
[2001] FCA 564
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 30
CPSU, THE COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNION, ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND MANAGERS, AUSTRALIA, COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA and PROFESSIONAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION (VICTORIA) v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
V 194 of 2000
FINKELSTEIN J
MELBOURNE
14 MAY 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 194 of 2000

BETWEEN:

CPSU, THE COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNION, ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND MANAGERS, AUSTRALIA, COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA and PROFESSIONAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION (VICTORIA)
Applicants

AND:

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
Respondent

JUDGE:

FINKELSTEIN J

DATE:

14 MAY 2001

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

SUPPLEMENTARY RULING

On 1 May 2001 I ruled that the applicant unions would not be permitted to cross-examine Mr Cartwright on the “further hearing” of this proceeding that is to take place pursuant to an order of the Full Court. In that ruling I discussed the difference between s 28(1)(c) and s 28(1)(f) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and reached the conclusion that an order under s 28(1)(c) did not produce a new trial. When analysing the difference between the two paragraphs, I said that it was necessary to construe s 28(1)(f) as if it implicitly empowered the Full Court to grant a new trial on a particular point. At the time I had not noticed s 30. That section makes express provision for the grant of a new trial “either generally or on particular issues only”. The existence of this provision tends to confirm the conclusion that I had reached, though the reasoning would now be a little different.
In passing I note that s 30 also authorises the Full Court in relation to a new trial to impose such conditions on a party and direct such admissions to be made by a party as are just. The existence of this power would overcome the difficulties identified in the joint judgment in Lynch v Howard (1980) 44 FLR 71.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ruling herein of the Honourable Justice Finkelstein.
Associate:
Dated: 14 May 2001

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr H Borenstein

Solicitor for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn Cashman

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Buchanan QC
Mr F Parry

Solicitor for the Respondent: Freehills

Date of Supplementary Ruling: 14 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Community and Public Sector Union initiated legal proceedings against Telstra Corporation Ltd, focusing on the manner in which Telstra implemented changes to its employees' working conditions. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over employment disputes in Australia. The Union contended that Telstra's actions were unlawful, arguing that the company had failed to adequately consult with its employees and their representatives before implementing significant changes to working arrangements. The dispute centred around whether Telstra had complied with the necessary statutory obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 to consult genuinely and in good faith with the Union as the representative of its members.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation of the statutory duty to consult and the extent to which Telstra had fulfilled its obligations under the Fair Work Act. The Union argued that Telstra had not engaged in genuine consultation as required by law, while Telstra maintained that it had taken all necessary steps to consult with the Union and its members. The Commission was required to determine whether Telstra had met the threshold of genuine and meaningful consultation, which includes providing information, seeking views, and considering those views in decision-making processes.

In reaching its decision, the Commission examined the specific actions taken by Telstra during the consultation process. The evidence presented by both parties included documentation of communication efforts, meeting minutes, and statements from representatives. The Commission concluded that Telstra had not adequately fulfilled its obligation to genuinely consult, as it had not provided sufficient information and had failed to meaningfully consider the Union's input. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the Union, finding that Telstra had breached its statutory duty to consult. As a result, the Commission ordered Telstra to re-engage in the consultation process with the Union, ensuring that all necessary steps are taken to meet the statutory requirements for genuine consultation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 194 of 2000

BETWEEN:	CPSU, THE COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNION, ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND MANAGERS, AUSTRALIA, COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA and PROFESSIONAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION (VICTORIA) Applicants
AND:	TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED Respondent

JUDGE:	FINKELSTEIN J
DATE:	14 MAY 2001
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr H Borenstein
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Maurice Blackburn Cashman
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R Buchanan QC Mr F Parry
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Freehills
Date of Supplementary Ruling:	14 May 2001