National Union of Workers v Coles CDC Eastern Creek Pty Ltd (No 2)

[2008] FCA 1445

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

National Union of Workers v Coles CDC Eastern Creek Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2008] FCA 1445 

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS and KARYN MESSER v COLES CDC EASTERN CREEK PTY LTD, VERSACOLD LOGISTICS LIMITED, THE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION, NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH and THE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION

NSD 1480 OF 2008

BUCHANAN J
19 SEPTEMBER 2008
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1480 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS
First Applicant

KARYN MESSER
Second Applicant

AND:

COLES CDC EASTERN CREEK PTY LTD
First Respondent

VERSACOLD LOGISTICS LIMITED
Second Respondent

THE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION, NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH
Third Respondent

THE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	BUCHANAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 SEPTEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceedings are adjourned generally.

2.The parties have liberty to apply on three days notice.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1480 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS
First Applicant

KARYN MESSER
Second Applicant

AND:

COLES CDC EASTERN CREEK PTY LTD
First Respondent

VERSACOLD LOGISTICS LIMITED
Second Respondent

THE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION, NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH
Third Respondent

THE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	BUCHANAN J
DATE:	19 SEPTEMBER 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BUCHANAN J:

1. This matter came before me on 17 September 2008 as the Duty Judge.  On that day, I made orders for abridgement of service of the application and a supporting affidavit.  I acceded to a request that I retain temporary control of the matter as duty judge and listed it again this morning to consider any application for urgent interlocutory orders. 

2. At the hearing this morning, the respondents were each represented by counsel.  I was informed that the immediate differences between the parties have been resolved in a fashion which renders it unnecessary that any claim for interlocutory relief be pressed.  The first and second respondent accept, without demur from the third and fourth respondent, that, for technical reasons which it was unnecessary to explain, the agreement which was proposed would go to a ballot next Tuesday, 23 September 2008, was not capable of being approved.

3. The first and second respondent, on their own behalf and on behalf of the related companies who were proposed to be parties to that agreement, have undertaken to the Court that no further step will be taken to seek the approval of that document, and that any actions already commenced in that respect will be discontinued.  They have further undertaken, so far as the Eastern Creek site is concerned, that they will negotiate with the first applicant on behalf of any member of the first applicant who desires representation by it.  That brief summary of the undertaking should not be regarded as a substitute for the terms of the undertaking which were announced by Mr Herbert of counsel, and which are recorded in the transcript. 

4. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to do more at present than to accede to the request of the parties that the proceedings be adjourned generally.  The matter will be allocated to the docket of a judge of the court in the ordinary way.  The parties may contact the associate to that judge with respect to the future progress of the matter.

5. There will be no order as to costs.  The parties have liberty to apply on three days’ notice.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Buchanan.

Associate:

Dated:       19 September 2008

Counsel for the First and Second Applicants:	Mr R Reitano, Mr A Joseph
Solicitor for the First and Second Applicants:	Slater & Gordon
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents:	Mr A Herbert
Counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondents:	Mr C Buckley

Date of Hearing:	19 September 2008
Date of Judgment:	19 September 2008