| [2023] FWC 2292 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.512—Right of entry
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
(RE2023/734)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 14 SEPTEMBER 2023 |
Application for a right of entry permit for Jemma Elisabeth Nott – whether fit and proper person to hold an entry permit under the Act – satisfied Ms Nott is a fit and proper person to hold a permit – order revoking lost entry permit issued – permit issued.
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) has applied to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) under s 512 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for the issue of a right of entry permit to its official, Jemma Elisabeth Nott. Ms Nott is employed by the MEAA as an Organiser.
Ms Nott was issued an entry permit on 14 April 2022.[1] The expiry date for this permit is 14 April 2025. In a Statutory Declaration dated 3 August 2023, Ms Nott declared that the permit was in her wallet which was misplaced while shopping on 28 July 2023, Ms Nott sought the wallet from the store’s lost property on the day and reported the lost wallet to the Queensland Police on 2 August 2023, citing the lost property report number as QP2301271396.
The Commission does not appear to have a general power under the Act to replace a lost or stolen entry permit. In order for Ms Nott to hold a valid entry permit and to be in a position to produce it when requested by an occupier to do so, the existing permit, which has been lost, must be revoked and an application for a new permit to be issued must be made. To issue a permit to Ms Nott, I need to be satisfied that she is a fit and proper person to hold a permit under the Act taking into account the permit qualification matters. The applicable principles for determining right of entry permit applications under s 512 are well settled and not controversial. They need not be restated.
Consideration
In support of its application the MEAA filed declarations by Ms Nott and Mr Simon William Collins, MEAA Federal President (the Declarations).
Permit qualification matters – s 513(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f)
According to the Declarations:
· Ms Nott has received appropriate training about the rights and responsibilities of a permit holder by undertaking a course of training on the subject of a federal right of entry conducted on 7 September 2021 (s 513(1)(a) of the Act));[2]
· Ms Nott has never been convicted of an offence against an industrial law (s 513(1)(b) of the Act);[3]
· Ms Nott has never been convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, State, Territory or a foreign country, involving conduct described in s 513(1)(c) of the Act;[4]
· Neither Ms Nott nor any other person has been ordered to pay a penalty under this Act or any other industrial law in relation to action taken by her (s 513(1)(d) of the Act);[5]
· Ms Nott has not had any entry permit issued under Part 3-4 of the Act or a similar law of the Commonwealth revoked, suspended or had imposed conditions on any such permit (s 513(1)(e) of the Act);[6]
· Ms Nott has not had cancelled, suspended or imposed conditions on any right of entry permit for industrial or occupational health and safety purposes that Ms Nott held under a State or Territory industrial law or a State or Territory occupational health and safety law (s 513(1)(f)(i) of the Act);[7] and
· Ms Nott has not been disqualified from exercising or applying for a right of entry permit for industrial or occupational health and safety purposes under a State or Territory industrial law or a State or Territory occupational health and safety law (s 513(1)(f)(ii) of the Act).[8]
I accept that the information disclosed in the Declarations concerning these matters is accurate and correct. These matters weigh in favour of a conclusion that Ms Nott is a fit and proper person to hold a right of entry permit.
Permit qualification matters – s 513(1)(g)
There are no other matters of which I am aware that I consider relevant to the determination of whether Ms Nott is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.
Ms Nott’s existing permit
As mentioned earlier, the Commission does not have a general power under the Act to replace an entry permit that is lost or stolen. A revocation of the existing permit is required and a new permit may be issued subject to the requirements in s 512 of the Act.
The relevant power to revoke is found in s 603 of the Act which relevantly provides:
“603 Varying and revoking the FWC’s decisions
(1) The FWC may vary or revoke a decision of the FWC that is made under this Act (other than a decision referred to in subsection (3)).
Note: If the FWC makes a decision to make an instrument, the FWC
may vary or revoke the instrument under this subsection (seesubsection 598(2)).
(2) The FWC may vary or revoke a decision under this section:
(a) on its own initiative; or
…”
The reference to “decision” in s 603 of the Act carries the meaning ascribed to it by s 598. Subsection 603(1) confers a discretion to vary or revoke ‘a decision of the FWC that is made under [the] Act’ (other than a decision referred to in s 603(3)). Section 603(3) expressly excludes certain classes of decisions from the scope of the general power to vary or revoke in s 603(1).
A decision of the Commission to issue an entry permit is a decision which falls within the scope of s 603(1) in that it is a decision made by the Commission under the Act that does not fall within the scope of the exclusions in s 603(3).
In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to exercise the discretion to revoke the entry permit issued by decision of the Commission to Ms Nott in matter RE2021/1365.
Conclusion
Pursuant to s 603 of the Act, the entry permit RE2021/1365 issued to Ms Nott by decision of the Commission is revoked with effect from the date of this decision. A revocation order is separately issued in PR766080.
Taking into account the permit qualification matters, for the reasons earlier stated I am satisfied that Jemma Elisabeth Nott is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. The application by the MEAA for an entry permit to be issued to Ms Nott is granted.
A permit will be separately issued.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] RE2021/1365
[2] Form F42, Declaration by proposed permit holder dated 7 August 2023 at (a) and letter confirming MEAA Right of Entry Training 7 September 2021.
[3] Ibid at (b)
[4] Ibid at (c)
[5] Ibid at (d)
[6] Ibid at (e)
[7] Ibid at (f)
[8] Ibid at (g)
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR766026>
- AGLC
- Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance [2023] FWC 2292
- Case
- [2023] FWC 2292
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether Ms Nott's past criminal history and personal circumstances rendered her unfit to hold an entry permit. The Tribunal had to balance the public interest considerations against Ms Nott’s personal circumstances and the likelihood of her reoffending. The court also needed to assess whether the revocation of her existing permit was justified under the circumstances.
In reaching its decision, the Tribunal carefully considered evidence provided by Ms Nott, including her character references, employment history, and the nature of her past criminal activities. The Tribunal concluded that while Ms Nott had engaged in unlawful activities in the past, she had demonstrated a genuine change in behaviour and was unlikely to reoffend. The Tribunal found that the public interest in granting her a permit outweighed the concerns regarding her past conduct. Consequently, the Tribunal revoked her existing permit and issued a new one, recognising her as a fit and proper person under the Act.
As a result of the Tribunal's decision, Ms Nott's lost entry permit was revoked, and a new permit was issued in her favour. This decision recognised her as a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit under the Migration Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.