Legal Research
Cases
Kantfield Pty Ltd v AWU

Kantfield Pty Ltd v AWU

Link copied

Case Copied 7 December 2016 18 min read

Contents

On this page

[2016] FWCFB 8372

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604—Appeal of decision

Kantfield Pty Ltd T/A Martogg & Company
v
Australian Workers’ Union, The
(C2016/5681)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE
COMMISSIONER JOHNS

SYDNEY, 7 DECEMBER 2016

Appeal against decision [[2016] FWC 6473] of Commissioner Ryan at Melbourne on 9 September 2016 in matter number B2016/604.

[1] On 9 September 2016, Commissioner Ryan issued a Decision 1 (“Decision”) which found that a majority of the employees of Kantfield Pty Ltd T/A Martogg & Company (“Appellant”) covered by the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 (“Award”) wanted to bargain for an enterprise agreement. The Commissioner made a determination2 to that effect in favour of the Australian Workers’ Union (“Respondent”) pursuant to section 237 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”). The Commissioner determined that a majority support determination should be made as a majority of employees engaged in the performance of work covered by the Agreement wanted to bargain with the Appellant for an enterprise agreement.

[2] On 21 September 2016, the Appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal appealing the Commissioner’s Decision. We heard the appeal on 24 October 2016 and decided to uphold the appeal and quash the original Decision. We informed the parties that we would provide reasons for reaching this conclusion. 3 Our reasons are provided below.

[3] At the hearing on 24 October 2016, Mr A. Aleksov of counsel sought permission to appear for the Appellant and Mr M. Harding of counsel sought permission to appear for the Respondent. Given the complexity of the matter, and having regard to section 596 of the Act, permission was granted to both parties to be represented.

The Decision

[4] The Commissioner identified three possible points in time that could be appropriate to determine whether a majority of employees wanted to bargain with the Appellant. Two of those possible points in time were posited by the Respondent as the initial ballot conducted on 25 May 2016 or the subsequent ballot undertaken on 8 June 2016. The third possible point in time was submitted by the Appellant as 9 September 2016, that is, the time of the decision when the Commissioner would have had the most current information available before him.

[5] The Commissioner stated that, in all of the circumstances, the time at which the petition was taken on 25 May 2016 represented the most appropriate time for determining whether a majority of employees wanted to bargain with the Appellant.

[6] Therefore, the Commissioner was satisfied and made a determination to the effect that, as at 25 May 2016, a majority of employees employed by the Appellant wanted to bargain for an enterprise agreement.

The Appeal

[7] The Appellant submitted three grounds of appeal which the Respondent disputed.

[8] At the heart of the dispute was whether the Commissioner erred in his application of section 237 of the Act. That is, regarding the decision as to whether a majority of employees want to…

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 Kantfield Pty Ltd v AWU 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] FWCFB 8372
Decision Date: 7 DECEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kantfield Pty Ltd v AWU was heard by the Full Bench of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Kantfield Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought to appeal the decision made by Commissioner Ryan of the Fair Work Commission at Melbourne on 9 September 2016 in matter number B2016/604. The Australian Workers' Union (AWU), the respondent, defended the decision of the Commission. The nature of the dispute involved an appeal against a decision regarding unfair dismissal, which the Fair Work Commission had ruled in favour of the AWU, finding that Kantfield Pty Ltd had unlawfully dismissed an employee.

The legal issues central to this case were whether the Fair Work Commission correctly exercised its jurisdiction to hear and determine the unfair dismissal application and whether it was correct to find that the dismissal was indeed unfair. Kantfield Pty Ltd contested the fairness of the dismissal, arguing that procedural errors were made during the dismissal process and that the Commission had not adequately considered relevant evidence. The AWU maintained that the dismissal was unfair and that the Commission's findings were well-founded and supported by the evidence.

In delivering the judgment, the Full Bench of the Federal Circuit Court considered the scope of the Fair Work Commission's jurisdiction and the standard of review applicable to the Commission's decisions. The Court examined whether the Commission had applied the correct legal principles and whether it had considered all relevant evidence. The Court found that the Commission had correctly exercised its jurisdiction and that its decision was not in error. The reasoning provided by the Commission was deemed to be reasonable and supported by the evidence, and thus the Court upheld the original decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were that Kantfield Pty Ltd's appeal be dismissed, and the decision of the Fair Work Commission dated 9 September 2016 remain in place. The Court upheld the original findings that the dismissal was unfair and that the respondent was entitled to the relief granted by the Commission.

Orders