Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, SA Divisional Branch
Case
•
[2017] FWC 1227
•8 MARCH 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, SA Divisional Branch [2017] FWC 1227
[2017] FWC 1227
8 MARCH 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, SA Divisional Branch sought a right of entry permit for Mark Gava, which was refused by the court. The dispute arose from the union's assertion that Gava was a fit and proper person to hold such a permit, despite concerns about his past behaviours and the undertakings he provided. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the primary issue was whether Gava met the criteria for a fit and proper person to hold a right of entry permit, given the uncertainty surrounding his provided undertakings.
The court examined the criteria for assessing the fitness of a person to hold a right of entry permit, focusing on Gava's past behaviours and the reliability of the undertakings he provided. The union argued that Gava's past behaviours did not disqualify him from holding the permit, and that the undertakings he provided were sufficient to mitigate any concerns. However, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to be confident in the reliability of the undertakings, given the nature of Gava's past behaviours. The court also considered the potential impact of Gava's behaviours on the union's reputation and the integrity of the permit system.
In light of the above, the court refused the application for a right of entry permit for Gava. The court held that the uncertainty surrounding the undertakings, coupled with Gava's past behaviours, created a significant risk that he would not act in a manner consistent with the permit's purpose. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining high standards for those holding right of entry permits to ensure the integrity of the industrial relations system. The final orders included the refusal of the application for a right of entry permit for Gava, with the court directing the union to address the concerns raised about Gava's past behaviours and the reliability of his undertakings.
The court examined the criteria for assessing the fitness of a person to hold a right of entry permit, focusing on Gava's past behaviours and the reliability of the undertakings he provided. The union argued that Gava's past behaviours did not disqualify him from holding the permit, and that the undertakings he provided were sufficient to mitigate any concerns. However, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to be confident in the reliability of the undertakings, given the nature of Gava's past behaviours. The court also considered the potential impact of Gava's behaviours on the union's reputation and the integrity of the permit system.
In light of the above, the court refused the application for a right of entry permit for Gava. The court held that the uncertainty surrounding the undertakings, coupled with Gava's past behaviours, created a significant risk that he would not act in a manner consistent with the permit's purpose. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining high standards for those holding right of entry permits to ensure the integrity of the industrial relations system. The final orders included the refusal of the application for a right of entry permit for Gava, with the court directing the union to address the concerns raised about Gava's past behaviours and the reliability of his undertakings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Fit and Proper Person
-
Uncertainty
-
Undertakings
-
Refusal of Permit
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Western Australian Branch [2018] FWC 1621
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Fair Work Commission
[2017] FWCFB 4141
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Gava
[2018] FCA 1480
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
0
Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
[2016] FCA 413
Brookfield Multiplex FSH Contractor Pty Ltd v McDonald
[2014] FCA 359