FOOD PRESERVERS UNION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, UNION OF WORKERS -v- THE AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION OF WORKERS, WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BRANCH & ANOR [2001] WASCA 136

Reported Decision:	(2001) 24 WAR 89
Jurisdiction:	WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL APPEAL COURT	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 136
Case No:	IAC:7/2000	Heard:	1 FEBRUARY 2001
Coram:	KENNEDY J (Presiding Judge) SCOTT J PARKER J	Delivered:	27/04/01
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed as being incompetent
PDF Version

Parties:	FOOD PRESERVERS UNION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, UNION OF WORKERS THE AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION OF WORKERS, WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BRANCH INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Industrial law Appeal from Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission to the Industrial Appeal Court Appellant ordering that respondent had the right, to the exclusion of the proposed appellant, to represent under the Act the industrial interests of employees of a company Proposed appellant given leave by the Full Bench to be heard Proposed appellant neither a party to the proceedings before the Full Bench nor an intervener Appeal incompetent
Legislation:	Industrial Relations Act 1979, s 72A, s 90(2)
Case References:	Burswood Resort (Management) Ltd v Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union, Miscellaneous Workers' Division, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 940280; 2 June 1994 Hospital Salaried Officers Association of Western Australia (Union of Workers) v Civil Service Association of Western Australia (Inc) (1996) 76 WAIG 1673 In re Sharkey; Ex parte Burswood Resort (Management) Ltd (1994) 55 IR 276 Re Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia WA Branch (1993) 49 IR 262 The Australian Bank Employees Union v Federated Clerks' Union of Australia Industrial Union of Workers, WA Branch (1990) 70 WAIG 2086 Re Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission; Ex parte Confederation of Western Australian Industry (Inc) (1992) 6 WAR 555

JURISDICTION : WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL APPEAL COURT CITATION : FOOD PRESERVERS UNION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, UNION OF WORKERS -v- THE AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION OF WORKERS, WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BRANCH & ANOR [2001] WASCA 136 CORAM : KENNEDY J (Presiding Judge)

SCOTT J

PARKER J

HEARD : 1 FEBRUARY 2001 DELIVERED : 27 APRIL 2001 FILE NO/S : IAC 7 of 2000 BETWEEN : FOOD PRESERVERS UNION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, UNION OF WORKERS

Appellant

AND

THE AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION OF WORKERS, WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BRANCH

First Respondent

INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Second Respondent

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Industrial law - Appeal from Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission to the Industrial Appeal Court - Appellant ordering that respondent had the right, to the exclusion of the proposed appellant, to represent under the Act the industrial interests of employees of a company - Proposed appellant given leave by the Full Bench to be heard - Proposed appellant neither a party to the proceedings before the Full Bench nor an intervener - Appeal incompetent

Legislation:

Industrial Relations Act 1979, s 72A, s 90(2)

Result:

Appeal…

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.

Continue reading Food Preservers Union of Western Australia, Union of Workers...

Details

AGLC: Food Preservers Union of Western Australia, Union of Workers v The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union of Workers, Western Australian Branch [2001] WASCA 136
Case: [2001] WASCA 136
Decision Date: 27 APRIL 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Food Preservers Union of Western Australia, Union of Workers against The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union of Workers, Western Australian Branch, the Industrial Appeal Court was tasked with determining the competence of an appeal lodged by the Food Preservers Union. The dispute centred around the right to represent the industrial interests of employees of a specific company, with the Food Preservers Union challenging a decision of the Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission that favoured the Automotive Union.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the Food Preservers Union had standing to appeal the decision of the Full Bench. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Food Preservers Union was a party to the proceedings before the Full Bench or an intervener, and if these conditions were met, whether the appeal was competent. The court was also required to consider the procedural rules governing appeals from the Full Bench to the Industrial Appeal Court.

The court held that the Food Preservers Union was neither a party to the proceedings before the Full Bench nor an intervener. As a result, it did not have the necessary standing to appeal the decision. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the procedural rules that define who may appeal from the Full Bench to the Industrial Appeal Court. Given that the Food Preservers Union did not meet the criteria for standing, the appeal was deemed incompetent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed as being incompetent

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.