The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland v Ardent Leisure Limited T/A Dreamworld

The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland, brought an action against Ardent Leisure Limited, trading as Dreamworld, in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought an order allowing its authorised representatives to enter Dreamworld's premises for the purpose of investigating a possible contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the employer had taken steps to hinder or prevent the union's right of entry to the workplace, which is protected under the Act. The Commission was required to determine the intentions of the employer in response to the union's request for entry.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Ardent Leisure Limited had acted in a manner that could be construed as an attempt to obstruct the union's right of entry to Dreamworld. The Commission considered the employer's actions and communications in response to the union's notice of intent to exercise its right of entry. It was necessary to assess whether these actions constituted an unreasonable hindrance to the union's right or if they were reasonable measures taken in the ordinary course of the employer's business. The interpretation of the employer's intentions was pivotal in resolving the dispute.

The Commission examined the specific actions and communications between the parties. It found that the employer had provided the union with adequate information to facilitate the exercise of the right of entry and had not taken any steps that could be considered an unreasonable hindrance. The employer's actions were deemed to be within the ordinary course of business and did not amount to an obstruction of the union's right. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the union's application, concluding that there was no basis to support the claim that the employer had hindered the union's right of entry.

No further orders were made by the Commission beyond the dismissal of the union's application. The decision underscored the importance of employers ensuring that their actions do not unreasonably impede the union's statutory right of entry while conducting their business operations.