ResMed Ltd v Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union - [2015] FCA 615

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
ResMed Ltd v Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union [2015] FCA 615

Citation: ResMed Ltd v Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union [2015] FCA 615

Appeal from: Application for Leave to Appeal: ResMed Ltd v Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (No 2) [2015] FCA 537

Parties: RESMED LTD v "AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION" KNOWN AS THE AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING WORKERS' UNION (AMWU) and FAIR WORK COMMISSION

File numbers: NSD 671 of 2015
NSD 672 of 2015

Judge: JESSUP J

Date of judgment: 19 June 2015

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal – separate proceedings in the Federal Court by employer and employee organisation to determine coverage of employee organisation’s existing eligibility rule stayed pending outcome of applications in Fair Work Commission –application before the Fair Work Commission to amend eligibility rule to expand coverage to all of the employer’s employees –application before the Fair Work Commission for an order that the employee organisation has no right to represent any of the employer’s employees – whether judgment attended by sufficient doubt to warrant the attention of a Full Court – whether substantial injustice would be occasioned were the appeal not granted – application dismissed

Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 137A
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) s 158

Cases cited: Adam P Brown Male Fashions v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Finance Sector Union of Australia (2003) 124 IR 453
Esso Australia v Federal Commissioner of Taxation(No 1) (2011) 196 FCR 560
Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
Finance Sector Union of Australia v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (2004) 205 ALR 582
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
In re: the Will of Gilbert (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318
Meggitt Overseas LtdvGrdovic (1998) 43 NSWLR 527
Warramunda Village Inc v Pryde (2002) 116 FCR 58

Date of hearing: 19 June 2015

Place: Melbourne

Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 34

Counsel for the Applicant: A Moses SC

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ashurst

Counsel for the First Respondent: A Howell

Solicitor for the First Respondent: L Saunders of the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union

Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent filed a submitting notice

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

NSD 671 of 2015

BETWEEN:
RESMED LTD
Applicant

AND:
"AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION" KNOWN AS THE AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING WORKERS' UNION (AMWU)
First Respondent

FAIR WORK COMMISSION
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 JUNE 2015

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

NSD 672 of 2015

BETWEEN:
RESMED…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read ResMed Ltd v Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] FCA 615
Decision Date: 19 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ResMed Ltd brought an application against the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union in the Federal Court, seeking to determine the coverage of the union's existing eligibility rule. Concurrently, the union sought to amend its eligibility rule through the Fair Work Commission to extend its coverage to all of ResMed's employees. ResMed also applied to the Fair Work Commission for an order that the union had no right to represent any of its employees. The union applied to the Fair Work Commission for leave to appeal the Federal Court's decision. The court had to determine whether the judgment was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant the attention of a full court and whether substantial injustice would be occasioned if the appeal was not granted.

The court considered that the application for leave to appeal did not present a question of law of general public importance. Additionally, the court found that there was no sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the primary judgment, and there was no substantial injustice that would be occasioned if the appeal was not granted. The court emphasised the importance of finality in industrial relations disputes and the need to avoid piecemeal litigation. The court held that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court's decision was in line with the principle of finality in industrial relations disputes and the need to avoid piecemeal litigation. The court found that the application for leave to appeal did not present a question of law of general public importance, and there was no sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the primary judgment. The court also found that there was no substantial injustice that would be occasioned if the appeal was not granted.

The court's final order was that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The decision highlights the importance of finality in industrial relations disputes and the need to avoid piecemeal litigation. The court's decision also emphasises the need for parties to exhaust all available avenues of resolution before seeking to appeal a decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:	ResMed Ltd v Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union [2015] FCA 615
Appeal from:	Application for Leave to Appeal: ResMed Ltd v Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (No 2) [2015] FCA 537
Parties:	RESMED LTD v "AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION" KNOWN AS THE AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING WORKERS' UNION (AMWU) and FAIR WORK COMMISSION
File numbers:	NSD 671 of 2015 NSD 672 of 2015
Judge:	JESSUP J
Date of judgment:	19 June 2015
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal – separate proceedings in the Federal Court by employer and employee organisation to determine coverage of employee organisation’s existing eligibility rule stayed pending outcome of applications in Fair Work Commission –application before the Fair Work Commission to amend eligibility rule to expand coverage to all of the employer’s employees –application before the Fair Work Commission for an order that the employee organisation has no right to represent any of the employer’s employees – whether judgment attended by sufficient doubt to warrant the attention of a Full Court – whether substantial injustice would be occasioned were the appeal not granted – application dismissed
Legislation:	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 137A Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) s 158
Cases cited:	Adam P Brown Male Fashions v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Finance Sector Union of Australia (2003) 124 IR 453 Esso Australia v Federal Commissioner of Taxation(No 1) (2011) 196 FCR 560 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 Finance Sector Union of Australia v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (2004) 205 ALR 582 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 In re: the Will of Gilbert (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318 Meggitt Overseas LtdvGrdovic (1998) 43 NSWLR 527 Warramunda Village Inc v Pryde (2002) 116 FCR 58
Date of hearing:	19 June 2015
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	34
Counsel for the Applicant:	A Moses SC
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ashurst
Counsel for the First Respondent:	A Howell
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	L Saunders of the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The second respondent filed a submitting notice
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION	NSD 671 of 2015

JUDGE:	JESSUP J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 JUNE 2015
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE