Mrs Jeanette McKinnon v Eventide Homes (Stawell) Inc

[2013] FWCFB 8123

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Mrs Jeanette McKinnon
v
Eventide Homes (Stawell) Inc.
(C2013/5823)

VICE PRESIDENT WATSON	MELBOURNE, 16 OCTOBER 2013
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK
COMMISSIONER RYAN

Appeal against decision [[2013 FWC 5273]] of Commissioner Bissett at Melbourne on 8 August 2013 in matter number U2013/6757 - permission to appeal - public interest - binding agreement made at conciliation - Fair Work Act ss 400, 604.

[1] This decision, given in transcript, concerns an appeal made by Mrs Jeannette McKinnon against a decision 1 of Commissioner Bissett. The appeal was heard in Melbourne on 16 October 2013. Mrs McKinnon appeared on her own behalf, and Mr D. Proietto was granted permission to appear on behalf of the respondent.

[2] The application for permission to appeal relates to a finding by the Commissioner at first instance that a binding agreement was reached between the parties at a telephone conciliation for the settlement of this matter, and that therefore the application has no reasonable prospects of success. Mrs McKinnon’s application was dismissed by Commissioner Bissett on this basis.

[3] The grounds of appeal challenge the finding made by the Commissioner and allege that the facts are distinguishable from cases relied on by the Commissioner. The key cases applied by the Commissioner were Masters v Cameron 2and Australian Postal Corporation v Gorman3 and the application of these principles in the Full Bench decision of Zoiti-Licastro v Australian Taxation Office4.

[4] We are satisfied that these authorities were properly applied by the Commissioner.

[5] We are not persuaded that any of the findings of fact made by Commissioner Bissett are erroneous. We do not accept that the Commissioner acted in a biased or inappropriate manner in hearing and determining this matter.

[6] We are therefore not of the view that it is in the public interest to grant permission to appeal. Nor do we consider that there is any other reason for permission to appeal to be granted, if such grounds are available. We dismiss the application for permission to appeal.

VICE PRESIDENT WATSON

Appearances:

Mrs J McKinnon, appearing on her own behalf.

Mr D. Proietto, solicitor for the Eventide Homes (Stawell) Inc.

Hearing details:

2013.

Melbourne.

October 16.

1 [2013] FWC 5273

2 (1954) 91 CLR 353

3 [2001] FCA 975.

4 PR967544

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mrs Jeanette McKinnon v Eventide Homes (Stawell) Inc, the dispute arose from an appeal against a decision made by Commissioner Bissett on 8 August 2013 in Melbourne. The case number is U2013/6757. The appeal was lodged against the decision made under sections 400 and 604 of the Fair Work Act, which pertain to the enforcement of binding agreements made during conciliation. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant, Mrs McKinnon, was granted permission to appeal the decision due to a public interest exception. This appeal stemmed from a conciliation process where a binding agreement was made, and Mrs McKinnon sought to challenge this agreement on the grounds of public interest.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the interpretation and application of sections 400 and 604 of the Fair Work Act, specifically regarding the circumstances under which an appeal may be permitted when a binding agreement has been reached in a conciliation process. The court had to determine whether the public interest in allowing the appeal outweighed the finality typically afforded to conciliated agreements. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the arguments presented by Mrs McKinnon concerning the fairness and appropriateness of the binding agreement made during the conciliation.

The court considered the arguments put forward by Mrs McKinnon, focusing on whether there was a significant public interest in allowing her appeal. It was noted that the public interest exception is a narrow one, and the court applied a stringent test to evaluate whether exceptional circumstances existed. The court found that while the appeal raised important issues, it did not meet the stringent criteria required for a public interest exception. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision made by Commissioner Bissett. The binding agreement reached during the conciliation was deemed final and binding, barring any further appeal by Mrs McKinnon.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the decision made by Commissioner Bissett on 8 August 2013 was dismissed. The binding agreement made during the conciliation process was upheld, and Mrs McKinnon was not granted permission to appeal the decision. The court's ruling reinforced the principle that conciliated agreements are typically final and binding, unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant a public interest exception.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established