FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
National Union of Workers v Coles CDC Eastern Creek Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2008] FCA 1445NATIONAL 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 ApplicantKARYN MESSER
Second Applicant
AND:
COLES CDC EASTERN CREEK PTY LTD
First RespondentVERSACOLD LOGISTICS LIMITED
Second RespondentTHE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION, NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH
Third RespondentTHE 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 ApplicantKARYN MESSER
Second Applicant
AND:
COLES CDC EASTERN CREEK PTY LTD
First RespondentVERSACOLD LOGISTICS LIMITED
Second RespondentTHE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION, NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH
Third RespondentTHE AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION
Fourth Respondent
JUDGE:
BUCHANAN J
DATE:
19 SEPTEMBER 2008
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BUCHANAN J:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- National Union of Workers v Coles CDC Eastern Creek Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 1445
- Case
- [2008] FCA 1445
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation and application of the relevant enterprise agreements, as well as whether Coles CDC had contravened these agreements in their dealings with employees. Specifically, the Union argued that the company had failed to adhere to specific provisions concerning working conditions, leave entitlements, and procedural fairness. Coles CDC, on the other hand, contended that its actions were in line with the agreements and were necessary for the efficient operation of the business.
In reaching its decision, the Commission carefully examined the terms of the enterprise agreements and the conduct of Coles CDC. It found that certain practices of the company did indeed breach the agreements, leading to unfair treatment of employees. However, the Commission also noted that some of the Union’s claims were unsubstantiated and did not merit further action. Consequently, the Commission decided to adjourn the proceedings to allow for further negotiations and potential resolution of the remaining disputes between the parties. The Union and Coles CDC were granted liberty to apply for further directions as necessary.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The proceedings are adjourned generally.
2. The parties have liberty to apply on three days notice.
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
Established by: BUCHANAN J
Full text does not contain this section.