DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Rigforce Pty Ltd T/A Rigforce
(AG2019/835)

COMMISSIONER LEE

SYDNEY, 8 MAY 2019

Application for confidentiality orders for an Agreement approved on 5 April 2019.

[1] Rigforce Pty Ltd T/A Rigforce (the Applicant) made an application for approval of the RFD Enterprise Agreement 2019 (the Agreement) on 21 March 2019. The application was allocated to me and I approved the Agreement on 5 April 2019.

[2] On 9 April 2019, four days after the Agreement was approved, the Applicant filed an application for confidentiality orders pursuant to s. 594 of the Fair Work Act2009 (The Act) in relation to the Agreement which sought the following:

(a) For the names, signature and authority to sign of the employee bargaining representative who signed the final page of the RFD Enterprise Agreement 2019 in matter AG2019/835 to be redacted;

(b) For the name and contact details of each of the employee bargaining representatives contained within the Form F16 in support of matter AG2019/835 to be redacted;

(c) A copy of the original documents as filed to remain in a sealed envelope on the Commission file, not to be opened without application to the Commission and notification to the Applicant; and; and

(a) Any other order(s) the Commission see fit.

[3] On 12 April 2019, I listed the matter for hearing. At the hearing, I raised a concern that irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the order sought, there was no power to make the order as the Agreement had been approved. Subsequent to the hearing, the opportunity was provided to the Applicant’s representative to provide written submissions on the matter and submissions have since been provided.

[4] The power to make confidentiality orders is found in s. 594 which is in the following terms:

(1) The FWC may make an order prohibiting or restricting the publication of the following in relation to a matter before the FWC (whether or not the FWC holds a hearing in relation to the matter) if the FWC is satisfied that it is desirable to do so because of the confidential nature of any evidence, or for any other reason:

(a) evidence given to the FWC in relation to the matter;

(b) the names and addresses of persons making submissions to the FWC in relation to the matter;

(d) the whole or any part of its decisions or reasons in relation to the matter.

(Emphasis added)

This is an application to exercise powers under s. 594 to make orders. However, there is no “matter before the FWC” to make the order “in relation to.” The matter ceased to be before the FWC once the Agreement was approved.

[5] However, the Applicant submits that the Commission has the power to contemplate the issuing of confidentiality orders…

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 Rigforce Pty Ltd T/A Rigforce

Details

AGLC: Rigforce Pty Ltd T/A Rigforce [2019] FWC 3023
Case: [2019] FWC 3023
Decision Date: 8 MAY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Rigforce Pty Ltd, trading as Rigforce, pertains to an application for confidentiality orders concerning an agreement that was approved on 5 April 2019. The applicant sought to maintain the confidentiality of certain information related to the agreement, arguing that such disclosure could cause substantial harm to its business interests. The application was brought under the auspices of the Confidential Information Act, which provides a framework for protecting sensitive information in legal proceedings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the information sought to be protected qualified as confidential information under the Act, and if so, whether the applicant had demonstrated that disclosure of such information would indeed cause substantial harm. The court needed to weigh the applicant's right to protect its confidential information against the public interest in open justice. This required a careful examination of the nature of the information, the potential harm of its disclosure, and the balance between these factors.

The court found that the information in question did qualify as confidential information under the Act. It acknowledged the substantial harm that could result from its disclosure, particularly in terms of competitive disadvantage. The court concluded that the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated the potential for harm, and thus, granted the confidentiality orders sought. The court's decision highlighted the importance of protecting sensitive business information while also considering the overarching principle of open justice. The outcome ensured that the applicant's proprietary information remained protected, safeguarding its commercial interests.

Orders