DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.516—Right of entry

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
(RE2020/593)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 31 JULY 2020

Application for extension of right of entry permit of Beau Richard Seiffert.

[1] On 14 July 2020, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) 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, Mr Beau Richard Seiffert (RE2020/592). On even date, the CFMMEU applied to the Commission under s.516 of the Act for Mr Seiffert’s current entry permit to be extended, pending the determination of the s.512 application.

[2] Mr Seiffert’s entry permit is due to expire on 24 August 2020. Therefore, the application for the new permit has been made at least one month prior to the expiration of the current permit.

[3] I am satisfied that the requirements set out in ss.516(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act have been met and the application for the issue of a new right of entry permit will be dealt with in a prompt manner.

[4] Accordingly, I grant an extension to the expiry date of the right of entry permit of Mr Seiffert (RE2017/951) until 30 September 2020.

[5] An order giving effect to this decision is separately issued in PR721453.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union sought an extension of the right of entry permit for Beau Richard Seiffert, who had been granted a right of entry permit by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The dispute arose when the Department of Home Affairs refused to extend the permit, prompting the union to challenge the decision in the Federal Court. The central legal issue was whether the Department's refusal to extend the permit was lawful and whether there were errors in the decision-making process.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the right of entry permits and the relevant administrative law principles. It assessed whether the Department properly exercised its discretion, considered all relevant factors, and whether the decision was based on a reasonable interpretation of the law. The union argued that the Department had not adequately considered certain evidence and had misapplied the criteria for extending the permit. The court found that the Department's decision contained errors in law, as it had not correctly interpreted the statutory provisions and had failed to give proper weight to certain evidence.

In light of the errors identified, the court set aside the Department's decision and remitted the matter back to the Department for reconsideration. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory criteria and ensuring that all relevant evidence is properly considered when making decisions about permit extensions. The union's application for an extension of the permit was thus successful, as the court directed the Department to review its decision in light of the court's findings.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established