The Australian Workers' Union v Bradken Industries

[2015] FWC 2005

[2015] FWC 2005

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Bradken Industries
(C2015/1626)

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
Bradken Industries
(C2015/328)

COMMISSIONER RYAN MELBOURNE, 24 MARCH 2015

Alleged dispute regarding Redundancy and Consultation Alleged dispute regarding Redundancy and Consultation.

[1] Bradken has sought permission from the FWC pursuant to s.596 for Bradken to be represented by Herbert Smith Freehills in proceedings in both matters.

[2] Herbert Smith Freehills filed written submissions in support of Bradken’s request for permission to be represented by a lawyer or paid agent.

[3] The Commission at this time is only engaged in conciliation with the parties and the conciliation will only resolve the dispute if there is agreement between the parties. At this stage the Commission is not exercising any arbitral functions.

[4] Conciliation will be most effective if the parties focus on attempts to resolve the issues in dispute through discussion.

[5] There is nothing in these matters which is overly complex and there is nothing in these matters which would satisfy the Commission that having regard to the lack of any real complexity in the matter that the conciliation would be conducted more efficiently if Bradken were legally represented.

[6] As the Commission is conducting a conciliation conference I am of the view that Bradken can effectively represent itself. This is the third conciliation conference convened by the Commission in relation to these matters. In the first conference Bradken was represented by management and they effectively represented the views and position of Bradken. In the second conference Mr Pollock of Herbert Smith Freehills was present and assisted the management representatives of Bradken put their view although Mr Pollock had not been granted permission to be the representative of Bradken.

[7] I am of the view that no unfair would be visited on Bradken if permission to represented by a solicitor or paid agent was refused.

[8] The conduct of the previous two conferences suggests very strongly to the Commission that fairness between the parties does not support a grant of permission for Bradken.

[9] Having considered all of the submissions advanced by Herbert Smith Freehills on behalf of Bradken I refuse permission for Bradken to be represented by a lawyer or paid agent.

[10] The Commission’s decision does not prevent Bradken from bringing their legal representative with them to the third conference in these matters. The decision relates solely to the issue of representation at the conference.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR562339>