Ms Jane Massey v Brighter Access Ltd

Case [2024] FWC 2001


[2024] FWC 2001

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.596 – Representation by lawyers and paid agents

Ms Jane Massey & Ors
v

Brighter Access Ltd & Ors

(U2023/12620)

Various industries

COMMISIONER CRAWFORD

SYDNEY, 30 JULY 2024

Application under section 596 for representation by lawyers and paid agents – consideration of application for recusal on grounds of perceived apprehended bias – application refused

  1. The Applicants[1] seeking to be represented by Employee Dismissals have requested that I recuse myself from the Full Bench dealing with whether they should be granted permission to be represented on the ground of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

  1. The submissions relied upon by the Applicants are set out in the Decision of Deputy President Wright (the Decision).[2]

  1. I am not a member of the Paid Agents Working Group and do not need to consider the Applicants’ submissions concerning this issue.

  1. I agree with and adopt the reasons[3] in the Decision and on that basis I reject the requests for me to recuse myself from these matters. I have determined that I will continue as a member of the Full Bench.

COMMISIONER

Hearing details:

Matter determined on the papers.

Final written submissions:

14 May 2024, for the Applicant.

SCHEDULE A

U2023/12620 Ms Jane Massey v Brighter Access Ltd
U2023/12590 Brent Cameron v BHP
C2024/756 Mr Antony Zebisch v MTM Critical Metals Limited
U2024/633 Danielle Windsor v Helping Hand Aged Care Inc
U2024/451 Lee Follett v BHP WAIO Pty Ltd
C2023/8063 Ms Karen Westergreen v Southern Cross Care Tasmania Inc
C2024/819 Mr Troy Leyshon v Mexican Express Pty Ltd
C2024/822 Mr Mathew Vendittelli v Crushing Services International Pty Ltd
C2024/1058 Pucho Paye v Plumb Now Pty Ltd
C2024/825 Ms Nancy Lopez v Safe Steps Family Violence Response Centre Inc
C2024/832 Gaelle Danre v Drummond Street Services Incorporated
C2024/917 Ms Sarah Wallace v The Trustee For Kemp Family Trust
C2024/945 Ms Tasneem Sayed v Goldstar Assets Pty Ltd
U2024/882 Ms Leah Haak v Optimum Performance Training Pty Ltd
U2024/1434 Jemaya Schubert v Crown Worldwide Australia Pty Ltd
U2024/1682 Hanna Wittner v Glad Security Pty Ltd
U2024/1679 Mark Giddings v Alcoa Of Australia Limited
U2024/1616 Ms Rachael Tucker v B & T BEANS PTY LTD
U2024/1452 Tanisha Vargas v The Trustee For Brightlite Unit Trust
U2024/1425 Mr Kaliam Simpson v South Coast Mariculture Pty Ltd
U2024/1373 Mr Deng Mabuoc v Marathon Food Industries Proprietary Limited
U2024/1298 Jenna Robertson v Australian Leisure And Hospitality Group Pty Limited
U2024/1146 Mr Darren Ferguson v Reid Stockfeeds Pty Ltd
U2024/1673 Mr Billy Angelis v Arthur, Shaun Nicholas
U2024/1986 Ms Jo-Anna Mealamu v Connectability Care Services Pty Ltd
U2024/453 Mr Darrell Kay v Fulton Hogan Construction Pty Ltd
C2024/657 Mr Jeremy Johnston v Odell Resources Pty Ltd
U2024/1154 Mr Faiga Su’A v Darley Aluminium Trading Pty Ltd
C2024/1361 Mr Anthony Harpur v Rebian Investments Pty Ltd
C2024/1352  Mr Michael Brook v Australian Postal Corporation
U2024/2339 Mr Shawn Stowe v Karuah Local Aboriginal Land Council
U2024/2692 Ms Sharon Phillis v Ultimate Cleaning & Gardening Solutions Pty Ltd
U2024/2691 Mr Ric Belic v DNA Construction Pty Ltd
C2024/1157 Mr David Mcintosh v Mulpha Hotel Pty Ltd TA Hayman Island
C2024/416 Mr Giorgio Gava v Laguna Beach Pty Ltd
C2024/1622 Mr Dylan Carroll v Indco Pty Ltd
U2024/3430 Ms Rachael Kumar v Healthx Group Pty Ltd
U2024/3241 Mr Liam Christinus v Mercy Education Limited
U2024/3240 Mr Mark Dowley v Sandalford Wines Pty Ltd
U2024/2533 Mr Robert Dalrymple v Etex Holding Australia Ii Pty Ltd
U2024/3028 Mr Peter Williams v Meridan State College P&C Association
U2024/2921 Mr Matthew Cahill v The Athenaeum Club
U2024/2922 Mr Justin Wei v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
U2024/1438 Ms Tracey Bradshaw v Skyline Landscape Management Pty Ltd
C2024/1709 Mr Stuart Peters v The Trustee for the Motorcycle Holdings Group Unit Trust
U2024/3118 Mr David Thomson v Young Guns Container Crew (Qld) Pty Ltd

[1] Listed at Schedule A to this Decision.

[2] [2024] FWC 2000, [2]-[5].

[3] Ibid, [7]-[16].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR777628>

Details
AGLC
Ms Jane Massey v Brighter Access Ltd [2024] FWC 2001
Case
[2024] FWC 2001
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ms Jane Massey and others versus Brighter Access Ltd and others, the Fair Work Commission was asked to determine whether the applicants were entitled to be represented by lawyers and paid agents in their proceedings. The application was brought under section 596 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicants sought to be represented by Employee Dismissals and argued that the Commissioner should recuse themselves from the case on the grounds of perceived bias. The applicants' submissions were considered in the Decision of Deputy President Wright. The Commissioner, however, did not find any grounds for recusal, agreeing with and adopting the reasons in the Deputy President's Decision.

The legal issues the court had to resolve included whether the Commissioner had a reasonable apprehension of bias, which would necessitate their recusal, and whether the applicants were eligible to be represented by lawyers and paid agents. The Commissioner examined the submissions made by the applicants and found no basis for recusal, as they were not a member of the Paid Agents Working Group. The court's decision to reject the recusal request was based on the reasoning that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court concluded that the Commissioner would continue as a member of the Full Bench, and the request for recusal was rejected. The reasoning was that the submissions did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias. As such, the applicants' request to be represented by lawyers and paid agents was not affected by the recusal issue. The matter was determined on the papers, with final written submissions received from the applicants on May 14, 2024. The final outcome of the application to be represented by lawyers and paid agents remains subject to further consideration by the Commission.

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.