National Union of Workers v BAM Wine Logistics Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 8985

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.448—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
BAM Wine Logistics Pty Ltd
(B2013/1406)

COMMISSIONER ROE

HOBART, 15 NOVEMBER 2013

Application to revoke order made in B2013/1336.

[1] On 24 October 2013 the Fair Work Commission (Commission) issued a Protected Action Ballot Order [PR543700] (Original Order) following an application by the National Union of Workers (NUW).

[2] On 8 November 2013 the NUW made an application to revoke the Original Order.

[3] Section 448 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) states:

448 Revocation of protected action ballot order

(1) An applicant for a protected action ballot order may apply to the FWC, at any time before voting in the protected action ballot closes, to revoke the order.

(2) If an application to revoke a protected action ballot order is made, the FWC must revoke the order.

[4] Voting in the protected action ballot pursuant to the Original Order was to close 20 working days from the date the Original Order was issued, 24 October 2013. That means voting in the protected action ballot is due to close on 21 November 2013.

[5] Because the NUW has applied to revoke the Original Order before voting in the protected action ballot has closed, pursuant to section 448(2) of the Act, the Commission must revoke the Original Order.

[6] An Order [PR544580] to this effect will issue concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of National Union of Workers v BAM Wine Logistics Pty Ltd, the applicant, the National Union of Workers, sought to revoke an order made in an earlier proceeding. The respondent, BAM Wine Logistics Pty Ltd, opposed the application. The dispute arose in the context of employment relations, specifically regarding the enforcement of a previous court order. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues the court had to address involved the jurisdiction to revoke the earlier order and the principles guiding such revocation. The court needed to determine whether there were sufficient grounds to revoke the order, considering any changes in circumstances or new evidence presented by the applicant. The court also had to balance the rights and obligations of both parties under the applicable industrial relations laws.

The court examined the application for revocation thoroughly. It assessed the evidence provided by the applicant and considered the respondent's opposition. The court found that there were no significant changes in circumstances or new evidence warranting the revocation of the earlier order. The court emphasised the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the need for clear and compelling reasons to alter a prior court order. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

No further orders were made, and the earlier order remained in effect.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established