INTERIM DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union
v
State of Victoria T/A Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources
(C2016/2939)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 6 OCTOBER 2016

Application to the Commission to deal with a dispute – interim confidentiality order with respect to documents lodged

[1] In accordance with directions issued by the Commission on 1 July 2016, the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) filed submissions in reply which included a supplementary statement of Mr Kevin Powell dated 4 October 2016. That statement contained a number of attachments.

[2] The Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (the Department) has objected to the material filed by the CPSU and has made an application to the Commission that the material be withdrawn and destroyed or otherwise managed to ensure confidentiality.

[3] The Commission has decided to issue an interim confidentiality order in accordance with s.594 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for attachments 1 to 5 of the supplementary statement of Mr Powell. That order will include that the material is not to be released or provided to any other person except Mr Powell’s CPSU representative.

[4] Final orders will be issued at or after hearing further from the parties at the hearing of this matter on Friday, 7October 2016.

[5] An order 1 to this effect is being issued at the same time as this decision.

COMMISSIONER

1 PR586147.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) and the State of Victoria, represented by the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose from the filing of supplementary submissions by the CPSU, which included a statement by Mr Kevin Powell with several attachments. The Department objected to the material submitted by the CPSU, citing concerns about confidentiality, and subsequently applied to the Commission for an order to manage these documents to ensure their confidentiality. The Commission was required to decide whether the attachments should be withdrawn, destroyed, or managed in a manner that maintained confidentiality.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the attachments to Mr Powell's supplementary statement should be subject to an interim confidentiality order. This involved interpreting section 594 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows the Commission to manage documents to ensure confidentiality. The Commission needed to balance the CPSU's right to present its case with the Department's right to protect sensitive information. The court's reasoning involved assessing the sensitivity of the documents and the potential harm that could result from their release.

The Commission determined that an interim confidentiality order was necessary to protect the sensitive information contained in attachments 1 to 5 of Mr Powell's supplementary statement. The order specified that these documents should not be released or provided to any person other than Mr Powell’s CPSU representative. This decision was made to ensure that the confidentiality of the information was maintained while the matter proceeded before the Commission. The Commission indicated that final orders would be issued after further input from both parties at the hearing on 7 October 2016.

The Fair Work Commission issued an interim confidentiality order for attachments 1 to 5 of Mr Powell's supplementary statement. These documents were not to be released or provided to any other person except Mr Powell’s CPSU representative. The Commission also noted that final orders would be issued after the hearing on 7 October 2016, where further submissions from the parties would be considered.

CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v State of Victoria T/A Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

INTERIM DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established