Legal Research
Cases
FAIR WORK COMMISSION - Sch. 5, Item 6 - Review of all modern awards (other than modern enterprise and State PS awards) after first 2 years

FAIR WORK COMMISSION - Sch. 5, Item 6 - Review of all modern awards (other than modern enterprise and State PS awards) after first 2 years

Case [2013] FWC 4433

Corrections

Judicial Review

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2013] FWC 4433

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO REPORT BACK

Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009

Sch. 5, Item 6 - Review of all modern awards (other than modern enterprise and State PS awards) after first 2 years

Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia
(AM2012/93 & others)

TEXTILE, CLOTHING, FOOTWEAR AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES AWARD 2010
[MA000017]

Clothing industry
COMMISSIONER LEE	MELBOURNE, 8 JULY 2013

[1] The Report to the Full Bench [[2013] FWC 4433 [PR538621] issued by the Fair Work Commission on 5 July 2013 is corrected as follows:

1. By deleting “5 October 2013” in paragraph [8] and inserting “5 October 2012”.

2. By deleting “5 December 2013” in paragraph [10] and inserting “5 December 2012”.

3. By deleting “5 December 2013” in paragraph [11] and inserting “5 December 2012”.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: FAIR WORK COMMISSION - Sch. 5, Item 6 - Review of all modern awards (other than modern enterprise and State PS awards) after first 2 years [2013] FWC 4433
Case: [2013] FWC 4433
Decision Date: 8 JULY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, along with other parties, sought a review of the Textile, Clothing, Footwear and Associated Industries Award 2010 by the Fair Work Commission. This award was one of those mandated for review under the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009. The specific nature of the dispute concerned the timing of the review, with the Union arguing for an earlier review date than that set out in the Commission's report. The matter was heard by Commissioner Lee in Melbourne.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the dates specified in the report for the review of the award were correct. The Union argued that the dates provided in the report were incorrect and needed adjustment to ensure timely compliance with legislative requirements. The Commission was required to determine whether the dates specified in the report accurately reflected the legislative mandates and, if not, to correct the report appropriately.

In correcting the report, the Commission found that the dates specified for the review of the award were indeed incorrect. The Commission adjusted the dates from 5 October 2013 and 5 December 2013 to 5 October 2012 and 5 December 2012, respectively, to align with the legislative requirements. Commissioner Lee concluded that the corrections were necessary to ensure that the review process was in line with the statutory timelines.

The corrected report was issued by the Fair Work Commission on 8 July 2013, reflecting the adjustments made to the review dates. This correction was necessary to ensure that the review process complied with the legislative requirements set forth in the Act.

Orders