Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations v Dooley

The matter before the court involved the review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning the redundancy pay entitlement of Mr Dooley. The AAT had set aside the decision of the Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, and remitted the matter for recalculation. The dispute centred on whether the AAT provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court was required to determine whether the AAT had properly identified the governing instrument for Mr Dooley’s redundancy pay entitlement and whether it had given sufficient reasons for its decision.

The court examined the statutory duty of the AAT to provide reasons under ss 43(2) and 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). It noted that the purpose of this duty was to ensure that a person affected by the decision could understand the reasons for the decision and the evidence on which it was based. The court also considered the need for the AAT to reference the evidence or other material on which its findings were based, and to explain why certain matters were considered material. The court held that the AAT’s reasons were insufficient because it did not clearly articulate the essential grounds for its decision and did not properly reference the evidence or material relied upon.

The court found that the AAT had erred by identifying the Grand Chapel agreement, rather than the 2020 agreement, as the governing instrument for determining Mr Dooley’s redundancy pay entitlement. The Grand Chapel agreement was between Ovato Print and the AMWU, to which Mr Dooley was not a party. The court noted that ordinarily, courts are cautious about translating industrial agreements between an employer and a union as creating enforceable contractual rights for employees.

The court set aside the decision of the AAT and issued an order in the nature of a writ of mandamus, requiring the AAT to hear and determine Mr Dooley’s application for review according to law. The court also noted that the applicant did not seek an order for costs.