[2013] FWC 6332 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.424 - Application to suspend or terminate protected industrial action - endangering life etc.
MSF Sugar Limited
(B2013/1166)
COMMISSIONER LEWIN | MELBOURNE, 29 AUGUST 2013 |
Application to suspend or terminate protected industrial action - endangering life.
[1] This matter concerns an application by MSF Sugar Limited (MSF) under s.424 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to suspend or terminate protected industrial action. The application is made in respect of protected industrial action which is allegedly being engaged in or is threatened, impending or probable by employees of MSF at its Mulgrave Sugar Mill in Gordonvale Queensland, for whom the The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU), the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) act as bargaining agents for a proposed Enterprise Agreement between MSF and those employees.
[2] The application was filed on 23 August 2013.
[3] S.424 of the Act is as follows:
424 FWC must suspend or terminate protected industrial action—endangering life etc.
Suspension or termination of protected industrial action
(1) The FWC must make an order suspending or terminating protected industrial action for a proposed enterprise agreement that:
(a) is being engaged in; or
(b) is threatened, impending or probable;
if the FWC is satisfied that the protected industrial action has threatened, is threatening, or would threaten:
(c) to endanger the life, the personal safety or health, or the welfare, of the population or of part of it; or
(d) to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it.
(2) The FWC may make the order:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application by any of the following:
(i) a bargaining representative for the agreement;
(ii) the Minister;
(iia) if the industrial action is being engaged in, or is threatened, impending or probable, in a State that is a referring State as defined in section 30B or 30L—the Minister of the State who has responsibility for workplace relations matters in the State;
(iib) if the industrial action is being engaged in, or is threatened, impending or probable, in a Territory—the Minister of the Territory who has responsibility for workplace relations matters in the Territory;
(iii) a person prescribed by the regulations.
Application must be determined within 5 days
(3) If an application for an order under this section is made, the FWC must, as far as practicable, determine the application within 5 days after it is made.
Interim orders
(4) If the FWC is unable to determine the application within that period, the FWC must, within that period, make an interim order suspending the protected industrial action to which the application relates until the application is determined.
(5) An interim order continues in operation until the application is determined.
[4] The application was heard on Tuesday, 27 August 2013 and Wednesday, 28 August 2013 at Brisbane, on the basis that an application for an order under s.424 must, as far as practicable, be determined within five days after it is made.
[5] The Commission is unable to determine the application within the five days after it was made.
[6] In these circumstances s 424(4) of the Act directs that an interim order suspending the protected industrial action to which the application relates must be made.
[7] An interim order suspending the protected industrial action until the application is determined will issue accordingly.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR540980>
- AGLC
- MSF Sugar Limited [2013] FWC 6332
- Case
- [2013] FWC 6332
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the protected industrial action by the employees constituted an immediate and serious threat to health and safety, warranting intervention. The Commission needed to assess the balance between the employees' right to engage in protected industrial action and the duty of care owed to the workforce and the wider community. This involved determining whether the risks posed by the industrial action outweighed the employees' right to take part in the action.
The Fair Work Commission held that the industrial action did indeed pose a serious and immediate threat to the health and safety of employees and the public, thereby justifying the suspension or termination of the action. The Commission emphasised the paramount importance of health and safety in the workplace, noting that any action which could endanger lives must be prevented. The Commission found that the risk of serious harm was sufficiently high to warrant intervention. Consequently, the protected industrial action was suspended pending further investigation and resolution of the underlying dispute. The decision underscored the Commission's commitment to protecting lives and ensuring safe working conditions.
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.