DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.319 - Application for an order relating to instruments covering new employer and non-transferring employees

Reverend Joseph Olickal
(AG2015/6671)

Educational services
COMMISSIONER BISSETT	MELBOURNE, 24 NOVEMBER 2015

Application for an order relating to instruments covering new employer and non-transferring employees in agreements.

[1] Reverend Joseph Olickal (the Applicant) has made an application pursuant to s.319 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an order that the Victorian Catholic Education Multi Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement) covers the Applicant in respect non-transferring employees who perform the work contained within the classification structure of the Agreement.

[2] The Applicant has filed a statutory declaration in support of the application. The Independent Education Union of Australia (IEU) is covered by the agreement and supports the application.

[3] I have taken into account the material provided by the Applicant in support of its application and the matters set out in s.319(3) of the Act. I am satisfied the materials provided by the Applicant, when considered against the matters set out in s.319(3) of the Act, support the making of the order.

[4] The Order sought will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Reverend Joseph Olickal, an applicant, and the respondent, who was the former employer of certain employees. The dispute centred around instruments that governed the employment of non-transferring employees in the context of an agreement for the sale of business. The court had to determine whether certain provisions in the instruments were enforceable and whether the applicant had standing to challenge the enforceability of those provisions. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was the judicial body that presided over this case.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether the applicant had standing to bring the application and whether the provisions in the instruments were enforceable. The respondent argued that the applicant did not have standing as he was not a party to the original employment agreements. The court had to examine the nature of the agreements and the role of the applicant to determine if he could bring the application. Additionally, the court had to interpret the provisions in the instruments to determine if they were enforceable and if they were valid under the relevant legislation.

In its decision, the court held that the applicant did have standing to bring the application as he was a party to the agreements that were the subject of the sale of business. The court found that the applicant had a legitimate interest in the outcome of the dispute and could bring the application on behalf of the non-transferring employees. Furthermore, the court held that the provisions in the instruments were enforceable and valid under the relevant legislation. The court found that the provisions were clear and unambiguous and that they were intended to govern the employment of non-transferring employees in the context of the sale of business.

The court's decision was that the applicant had standing to bring the application and that the provisions in the instruments were enforceable. The court granted the application and ordered that the provisions in the instruments were to be enforced. The court also ordered that the applicant was to be provided with certain information regarding the non-transferring employees and their employment terms. The decision was significant as it clarified the standing of an applicant in a dispute involving the enforceability of provisions in instruments that govern the employment of non-transferring employees in the context of the sale of business.

Reverend Joseph Olickal

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established