DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
ACI Operations Pty Ltd T/A O-I Melbourne
(C2014/7934)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 22 DECEMBER 2014

Decision as to jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with dispute.

[1] Pursuant to s.601 of the Fair Work Act 2009 I reduce to writing the decision given orally in transcript at the hearing of this matter on Friday 19 December 2014.

[2] The Commission determines that it has jurisdiction under clause 16 of the O-I Melbourne Glassworkers Workplace Agreement 2013 to arbitrate the issue posed by The Australian Workers’ Union in its email to the Commission dated 18 December 2014:

“What is established custom and practice at the workplace in relation to the allocation of leave and the coverage of absences arising therefrom?”

[3] The reasons for the decision are those as given on transcript.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

P. Reilly for The Australian Workers’ Union

M. Rayner for ACI Operations Pty Ltd T/A O-I Melbourne

Hearing details:

2014.

Melbourne:

December 19

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union, acting on behalf of its members, brought proceedings against ACI Operations Pty Ltd, trading as O-I Melbourne, in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought to resolve a dispute concerning the interpretation and application of certain industrial awards and agreements. The matter was heard by Commissioner D'Abbs who had to determine the jurisdiction of the Commission to address the dispute.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commission had the authority to hear and decide on the dispute presented by the union. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the dispute fell within the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009. This involved interpreting the relevant industrial instruments and determining if the Commission had the power to make a decision that would be binding on the parties.

Commissioner D'Abbs held that the Commission had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. The court found that the issues raised by the union were matters that could be resolved under the industrial instruments in place. The Commission's authority to hear and determine the dispute was upheld, as the matters presented were within the scope of industrial disputes that the Fair Work Act empowers the Commission to address. Consequently, the Commission was able to proceed with the hearing and make a decision on the merits of the case.

The orders made by the Commission included a determination that the Fair Work Commission had jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute brought by the Australian Workers' Union against ACI Operations Pty Ltd. The Commission further directed that the matter should proceed to a hearing on the merits to resolve the issues raised by the union.

The Australian Workers' Union v ACI Operations Pty Ltd T/A O-I Melbourne

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established