DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.448—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Bogicevic Family Trust T/A Coolibah Herbs
(B2016/647)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 21 JUNE 2016

Application to revoke order made in B2016/639.

[1] On 20 June 2016, upon the application of the National Union of Workers (the union), the Fair Work Commission made a protected action ballot Order (the Order) 1. The Order was made in respect of specified employees of Bogicevic Family Trust T/A Coolibah Herbs (the employer).

[2] On 21 June 2016, the union made an application pursuant to s.448 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), for revocation of the Order.

[3] The Order at point 5 stated that the protected action ballot is to close no later than 20 working days from the date of the Order.

[4] Therefore, pursuant to s. 448(2) of the Act, the Commission must revoke the Order. A Revocation Order 2 is issued separately.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 PR581859.

2 PR581924.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of National Union of Workers v Bogicevic Family Trust T/A Coolibah Herbs involved an application to revoke a previous order made by the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, National Union of Workers, sought the revocation of an order issued in B2016/639 against the respondent, Bogicevic Family Trust, trading as Coolibah Herbs. The dispute arose from an earlier decision where the Commission had made an order requiring the respondent to take certain actions, which the applicant now sought to have revoked. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal.

The central legal issues the Commission needed to address involved the circumstances under which an order can be revoked and whether the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated a change in circumstances warranting such a revocation. The Commission was required to consider the principles of finality and the public interest in ensuring stability in workplace relations, weighing these against the applicant's claims of new evidence and changed conditions. The case hinged on whether the new evidence presented was substantial enough to justify altering a previously issued order.

In its decision, the Commission examined the grounds for the application to revoke and the nature of the evidence presented. It was noted that orders of the Commission are generally final and not easily revoked, particularly in cases involving workplace relations. The Commission found that the applicant had not provided compelling evidence of changed circumstances that would justify revoking the earlier order. The principles of finality and the need for stability in employment relations weighed heavily in the decision, leading the Commission to conclude that the application should be dismissed. The Commission held that the order made in B2016/639 would remain in effect, and no revocation would be granted.

The final outcome of the case was that the application to revoke the order made in B2016/639 was dismissed. The Commission upheld the original order, emphasizing the importance of stability in workplace relations and the reluctance to alter decisions lightly. This decision reinforces the principle that orders of the Fair Work Commission are not easily set aside, particularly in cases involving employment relations.

National Union of Workers v Bogicevic Family Trust T/A Coolibah Herbs

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established