Melbourne Water Corporation v The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia

[2013] FWC 10062

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.602—Application to correct obvious error etc. in relation to FWC’s decision

Melbourne Water Corporation
v
The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia and Others
(B2013/1529)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SMITH

MELBOURNE, 20 DECEMBER 2013

Correct or amend an obvious error, defect or irregularity in relation to decision under s.185 in relation to matter number AG2013/9973.

[1] On 22 November 2013 the Melbourne Water Corporation Enterprise Agreement 2013 [AE405523 PR544917] [the Agreement] was approved.

[2] Shortly after that time the Australian Industry Group (AiGroup) advised me that it had made an error in the material lodged. In particular the AiGroup had not forwarded the Form F18 from the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) and The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia (APESMA).

[3] The Agreement was approved without the knowledge of the existence of the Form F18 from these two organisations and as such they were not covered.

[4] The Melbourne Water Corporation now make application pursuant to s.602(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2006 (the Act) to correct that error.

[5] Having seen the Statutory Declaration of Chris Sealie Principal Adviser, Workplace Relations, AiGroup, I am prepared to issue an order to make it clear that the two organisations will be bound by the Agreement.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Melbourne Water Corporation and The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia. The Association sought a correction or amendment of an obvious error, defect, or irregularity in relation to a decision made under section 185 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 in a matter numbered AG2013/9973. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Act and the specific circumstances surrounding the decision in question.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the decision in AG2013/9973 contained an obvious error, defect, or irregularity, and if so, whether the court had the jurisdiction to correct or amend that decision. The court considered whether the error was of a nature that it materially affected the outcome of the decision, and whether the correction or amendment was necessary to ensure justice in the matter.

The court found that the decision in AG2013/9973 indeed contained an obvious error. The error was significant and materially affected the outcome of the decision, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The court held that it had the authority to correct or amend the decision under section 185 of the Act. Consequently, the court ordered the correction or amendment of the decision to rectify the error and ensure that justice was served. The final orders included the specific changes necessary to correct the identified error and any consequential adjustments required to maintain the integrity of the decision-making process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established