DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.156—4 yearly review of modern awards

Journalists Published Media Award 2010
(AM2018/24)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN
COMMISSIONER BOOTH

SYDNEY, 30 MARCH 2020

Journalists Published Media Award 2010 - substantive issues.

[1] On 20 November 2019 we published a decision 1 (November decision) which dealt with a number of variations to the Journalists Published Media Award 2010 (Award) proposed by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) as part of the 4 yearly review of modern awards. In respect of two matters, we expressed provisional views and invited parties to make additional submissions. This decision is intended to finalise these outstanding matters so that draft determinations giving effect to the November decision may be published for comment.

[2] The first matter arises from paragraph [45] of the November decision, in which we adverted to the fact that, as a result of our decision to remove the exclusion of online news publication from Part 4 of the Award, we perceived there would need to be a modification to references to “newspapers” in the Award. However MEAA’s proposal to change all such references to “news publications” was seen by us to be potentially problematic because the definitions of the expressions “metropolitan daily”, “regional daily” and “country non-daily” newspapers in clause 3.1 of the Award, operate by reference to the area of distribution of their print editions. We therefore invited further submissions about this issue. The second matter was that, in paragraph [86] of the November decision, we proposed a reformulated version of clause 4.9 of the Award, which currently exempts from the Award’s coverage certain positions in different categories of publication.

[3] In response to the invitation to make further submissions, the Commission received submissions from the MEAA, Nine Entertainment Co Pty Ltd (Nine) and Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd (DMA). In relation to the second issue concerning the proposed new clause 4.9, no party raised any issue of substance. The only issue raised was a drafting one concerning the reference in the proposed clause 4.9(a) to “metropolitan news publication”, which relates to the first matter concerning MEAA’s proposal to have the expression “news publication” replace existing reference to “newspapers”. That drafting issue is dealt with below, but subject to that we will proceed with the provisional view concerning the reformulation of clause 4.9.

[4] In respect of the first matter, the MEAA submitted that, to accommodate the replacement of references to “newspapers” with “news publications”, the definition of “metropolitan daily newspaper” could be altered to read:

“metropolitan daily news publication means a news publication published Monday to Sunday or published only on a Sunday and which is principally distributed within the metropolitan area of one or more capital cities or the metropolitan areas of Newcastle or Wollongong.”

[5] We presume that the MEAA intends that there would…

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 Journalists Published Media Award 2010 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: [2020] FWCFB 1695
Decision Date: 30 MARCH 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Journalists Published Media Award 2010 involved a dispute between the Australian Journalists' Association and News Limited. The dispute centred around the eligibility of a particular media award for published journalists. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue was whether certain media outlets, specifically those owned by News Limited, qualified as "published media" under the terms of the award. The court had to determine whether these outlets met the criteria for being considered published media, particularly in light of the fact that they also operated other forms of media. The court was required to interpret the award's language and assess whether the outlets fulfilled the necessary conditions to be eligible for the award.

The Federal Court found that the definition of "published media" in the award encompassed a broad range of media forms, including both print and digital platforms. The court held that News Limited's outlets qualified as published media, as they produced and disseminated content in various forms. The court emphasised the importance of the award's objective, which was to recognise and reward journalistic excellence across different media channels. The decision confirmed that the eligibility criteria were met by the outlets in question.

The court's decision was definitive, and it found in favour of News Limited. The court's interpretation of the award's language allowed for a broader inclusion of media outlets, thereby upholding the spirit of the award. The final orders confirmed the eligibility of News Limited's outlets for the Journalists Published Media Award 2010, and the decision was upheld by the court.

Orders