Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales v Industrial Relations Secretary of New South Wales

The Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales (the Unions) sought judicial review of decisions made by the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (the Commission). The Unions challenged the Commission's determinations regarding the registration of certain industrial instruments, alleging that they were denied procedural fairness and that the Commission had failed to consider relevant matters and had placed an improper onus on them. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Commission had committed jurisdictional error. This encompassed questions of whether the Unions had been denied procedural fairness, specifically in relation to the opportunity to be heard and present their case. Further, the Court had to determine whether the Commission had failed to have regard to a relevant consideration or had taken into account an irrelevant consideration when making its determinations. The Court also considered whether the Commission had erred in placing the onus of proof on the Unions, and whether the Commission's decision was legally unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Unions' amended summons, finding no jurisdictional error on the part of the Commission. The Court reasoned that the Commission had afforded the Unions procedural fairness, providing them with adequate opportunities to present their arguments and evidence. The Court also concluded that the Commission had properly considered the relevant factors and had not been influenced by irrelevant considerations. Furthermore, the Court found that the onus of proof had not been improperly placed on the Unions, and that the Commission's decisions were not legally unreasonable.

Consequently, the amended summons dated 16 March 2021 was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondents. This order was not to prejudice the position of the eighth and ninth defendants concerning their costs.