INTERIM DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

DOF Management Australia Pty Ltd
(AG2016/2924)

Oil and gas industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT BINET	PERTH, 14 JUNE 2016

Application for approval of the DOF Management Australia Pty Ltd Maritime Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Enterprise Agreement 2016 – MUA standing to be heard.

[1] On 29 April 2016 DOF Management Australia Pty Ltd (DOF) filed an application (Application) pursuant to section 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) for the approval of the DOF Management Australia Pty Ltd Maritime Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Enterprise Agreement 2016 (Proposed Agreement).

[2] The Application which was filed had certain information redacted from it.

[3] On the same day, DOF sought an order pursuant to section 594(1)(c) of the FW Act that the personal identifiers of individual employee(s) (who were appointed as bargaining representatives and signed the Agreement for and on behalf of employees of DOF) be kept confidential.

[4] On 3 May 2016 the Fair Work Commission (Commission) received an application from the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) requesting that the MUA be heard in relation to the Application and be provided with a copy of the DOF Form F16 and Form F17 and a copy of, or access to, the matter file. DOF objected to the MUA being heard in any capacity in relation to the Application.

[5] A telephone conference was listed forThursday 19 May 2016 for both DOF and the MUA to be heard in relation to their respective requests (Telephone Conference).

[6] On Wednesday 11 May 2016 an extension of time for the filing of an non-redacted Application to the date of the Telephone Conference on 19 May 2016 was granted pursuant to section 185(3)(b) of the FW Act.

[7] In light of the submissions of the parties during the Telephone Conference, on 20 May 2016 the Commission issued a confidentiality order pursuant to section 594(1)(c) of the FW Act that the identity of employees proposed to be bound by the Agreement and the identity of the bargaining representatives of those employees be kept confidential.

[8] By way of directions issued to DOF and the MUA on 19 May 2016 (Directions), DOF was granted an extension of time pursuant to section 185(3)(b) of the FW Act to close of business, Wednesday 1 June 2016to file with the Commission an un-redacted version of the Application.

[9] With the knowledge of DOF the Commission provided the MUA with the redacted copies of the Forms F16 and F17 which were filed by DOF on 29 April 2016.

[10] The Directions required both DOF and the MUA to file further written materials in relation to the MUA’s standing to be heard as follows.

(a) DOF was directed to file submissions in relation to the standing of the MUA to be heard in relation…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DOF Management Australia Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] FWC 3792
Decision Date: 14 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DOF Management Australia Pty Ltd was the subject of an application to the Fair Work Commission for approval of the Maritime Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Enterprise Agreement 2016. The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) sought to be heard on the matter, arguing that it had standing to intervene in the proceedings. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the MUA had standing to participate in the approval process for the enterprise agreement.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the MUA, despite not being a party to the enterprise agreement, had standing to be heard in the approval process. The Commission needed to assess the criteria for standing and whether the MUA met those criteria. This involved examining the nature of the MUA's interest in the enterprise agreement and whether it represented the interests of employees affected by the agreement.

The Fair Work Commission found that the MUA did have standing to be heard in the approval process. The Commission reasoned that the MUA was a relevant union representing employees in the maritime industry, and its interest in the enterprise agreement was significant. The union's role in negotiating the agreement and its ongoing responsibility for the employees it represented meant that it had a legitimate interest in the approval process. Consequently, the Commission determined that the MUA was entitled to be heard and participate in the proceedings.

The Commission's decision was that the MUA had standing to be heard in the approval process for the DOF Management Australia Pty Ltd Maritime Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Enterprise Agreement 2016. This ruling allowed the MUA to make submissions and be part of the discussions regarding the enterprise agreement.

Orders