Legal Research
Cases
ResMed Limited v AMWU

ResMed Limited v AMWU

Case [2015] FWC 848 9 February 2015

Jurisdiction

Interlocutory Orders

Unconscionable Conduct

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2015] FWC 848

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
ss 589, 615 and 615A - Application for the President to direct a Full Bench to perform a function

ResMed Limited
v
Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU)
(C2015/1008)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT

MELBOURNE, 9 FEBRUARY 2015

Referral to a Full Bench - Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) - ss 589, 615 and 615A - application granted.

[1] ResMed Limited (ResMed) has applied for a direction that two matters be dealt with by one Full Bench of the Commission. The two matters in question are:

(i) Matter C2015/1008 an application filed by ResMed on 5 January 2015 for a representation order under s.137A of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) (FW (RO) Act); and

(ii) Matter D2014/70 an application filed by the AMWU on 12 November 2014 for consent to the alteration of its eligibility rules, pursuant to s.158 of the FW (RO) Act.

[2] In essence ResMed’s application seeks,:

(i) a direction under s.615A (or in the alternative s.615) that in respect of D2014/70 the powers and functions of the Commission be performed and exercised by a Full Bench;

(ii) that a Full Bench be constituted to hear and determine C2015/1008; and

(iii) a direction, pursuant to s.582(2) and/or s.582(4)(c), that C2015/1008 and D2014/70 be dealt with by the same Full Bench.

[3] The application filed by the AMWU in matter D2014/70 seeks the consent of the Commission to an alteration of its eligibility rules to insert a new rule, ‘1N’, which relevantly provides as follows:

“1N. Without in any way limiting or being limited by subrules 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, 1G, 1H and 1I, the Union shall consist of:

(a) an unlimited number of persons who are employed or whose usual occupation is that of an employee of the employer hereinafter prescribed or the successor, assignee of transmittee of that employer's business, or any subsidiary or joint venture of that employer:

ResMed Limited.”

[4] ResMed and the AWU have filed objections to the AMWU’s application.

[5] The application filed by ResMed in Matter C2015/1008 seeks an order as follows:

“The AMWU is not to have the right to represent under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) or the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)the industrial interests of the employees employed by ResMed Limited(ResMed).”

[6] Both applications concern the ability of the AMWU to represent the industrial interests of ResMed’s employees. If the application in Matter D2014/70 was granted the eligibility rule alteration this would allow the AMWU to represent the industrial interests of all ResMed’s employees. The other application, in Matter C2015/1008, is for an order that the AMWU not be entitled to represent the interests of ResMed’s employees.

[7] It is relevant to observe at the outset that Matter C2015/1008 must be dealt with by a Full Bench as s.138 of the FW (RO) Act provides that the Commission’s powers under s.137A are only exercisable by a Full…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading ResMed Limited v AMWU

Details

AGLC: ResMed Limited v AMWU [2015] FWC 848
Case: [2015] FWC 848
Decision Date: 9 FEBRUARY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ResMed Limited contested a decision made by a single member of the Fair Work Commission, which had referred the case to a Full Bench. The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) was involved in the dispute, which concerned the interpretation and application of sections 589, 615, and 615A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was heard by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act and whether the single member's decision to refer the matter to a Full Bench was justified. Specifically, the court had to determine if the single member correctly exercised their discretion under section 589 of the Act in referring the matter to a Full Bench and whether this referral was in accordance with the requirements of sections 615 and 615A.

The court, in granting the application, found that the single member's decision to refer the matter to a Full Bench was appropriate. The court held that the single member had correctly exercised their discretion and that the referral was consistent with the provisions of sections 615 and 615A. The Full Bench considered the nature of the dispute, the complexity of the issues involved, and the potential impact of the decision on the parties and the broader industrial relations landscape. Based on these factors, the court determined that the referral to a Full Bench was justified.

The court's decision affirmed the single member's referral of the matter to a Full Bench, and the application by ResMed Limited was accordingly granted.

Orders