Finance Sector Union v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Case [2005] FCAFC 176

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Finance Sector Union v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2005] FCAFC 176

FINANCE SECTOR UNION v COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA
NSD 576 OF 2005

WILCOX, BRANSON AND MERKEL JJ
19 AUGUST 2005
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 576 of 2005

BETWEEN:

FINANCE SECTOR UNION
APPELLANT

AND:

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

WILCOX, BRANSON and MERKEL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

19 AUGUST 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Leave to appeal be refused.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 576 of 2005

BETWEEN:

FINANCE SECTOR UNION
APPLICANT

AND:

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

WILCOX, BRANSON and MERKEL JJ

DATE:

19 AUGUST 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. The Court is of the opinion that leave to appeal should be refused. 

  2. We refuse leave on the simple basis that the case the applicant for leave wishes to make, as canvassed in discussion with counsel this morning, is not pleaded, with sufficient clarity, in the Further Amended Statement of Claim.  We say nothing as to whether or not that case might have any merit, if it were properly pleaded.  Nor do we say anything of a definitive nature about the proper construction of the relevant clause of the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement.

  3. It seems to us that Conti J was correct in concluding that both the Amended Statement of Claim and Further Amended Statement of Claim were defective.  His Honour was not asked to determine an application for leave to further amend the Further Amended Statement of Claim.

  4. The order of the Court is that leave to appeal be refused

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:
Dated:            13 September 2005

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr R Kenzie QC, Mr I Taylor
Solicitor for the Appellant: Turner Freeman
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Ellicott QC, Mr P R McGuire
Solicitor for the Respondent: Freehills
Date of Hearing: 19 August 2005
Date of Judgment: 19 August 2005
Details
AGLC
Finance Sector Union v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2005] FCAFC 176
Case
[2005] FCAFC 176
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Finance Sector Union (the "Union") sought leave to appeal a decision of the Fair Work Commission (the "FWC") that dismissed their claim for unfair dismissal against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (the "Bank"). The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the Union should be granted leave to appeal the FWC's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the FWC's decision contained an error of law warranting an appeal. Specifically, the Court needed to determine if the FWC erred in concluding that the Bank's decision to dismiss the employee was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and whether the Union's claim for unfair dismissal should have been upheld.

The Court found that the FWC's decision did not contain any error of law. The Court held that the FWC had properly considered all relevant factors and appropriately applied the law in reaching its conclusion. The Court found that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable as the Bank had followed its own policies and procedures and provided the employee with adequate opportunities to address the issues leading to the dismissal. The Court further held that the FWC's findings were supported by the evidence and that there was no basis for the Union's claim of unfair dismissal. Consequently, the Court refused the Union's application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal be refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

WILCOX, BRANSON AND MERKEL JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WILCOX, BRANSON AND MERKEL JJ

Full text does not contain this section.