Denis Seiffert Christiopher Strauss and Mr Daniel King v Patrick Projects Pty Ltd

[2016] FWC 4189

[2016] FWC 4189

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

REASONS FOR DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Jason Deeney;
Richard Park;
Christopher Hughes;
Denis Seiffert
Christiopher Strauss and
Mr Daniel King
v
Patrick Projects Pty Ltd
(U2014/982, U2014/983, U014/1008, U2014/1059, U2014/5970, U2014/7097)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE SYDNEY, 27 JUNE 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal .

[1] In previous proceedings involving these six applicants (the concurrent applicants), before a Full Bench of which I was a member, the respondent was not given permission to be legally represented.

[2] That Full Bench referred the six applications filed by the concurrent applicants pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to me for arbitration. The applications are listed in Perth on 8 August 2016 to 11 August 2016 inclusive.

[3] The respondent to these applications asked for permission to be legally represented at the arbitration. I considered that application and decided to allow legal representation. I advised the applicants of my decision on 18 May 2016.

[4] The concurrent applicants have appealed my decision. I now provide my reasons for the decision.

[5] Section 596 of the Act states that the Fair Work Commission may grant permission to be represented by a lawyer or paid agent if it would allow the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter.

[6] There are six applications. The basis of the applications vary. The facts are different.

[7] I considered the requirements of s.596 of the Act and the material before me.

[8] I determined that the applications would be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of each application, if permission to be represented by a lawyer was granted.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR582082>