United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board

[2013] FWCFB 3297

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

FURTHER DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604—Appeal of decision

United Firefighters’ Union of Australia
v
Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board
(C2013/3173)Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board
v
United Firefighters’ Union of Australia
(C2013/3204)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE
COMMISSIONER LEWIN

SYDNEY, 24 MAY 2013

Appeal against order [PR533599] of Commissioner Roe at Melbourne 29 January 2013 in matter numbers C2011/5138 and C2011/5139 Appeal against decision [2012] FWA 5408, [2012] FWA 9352[2013] FWC 354 of Commissioner Roe at Melbourne on 13 July 2012, 5 December 2012 and 17 January 2013 in matter numbers C2011/5138 and C2011/5139 .

[1] On 3 May 2013 we issued a decision in respect of these appeals 1 in which we granted permission to appeal, upheld grounds 8 and 9 of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB) appeal, otherwise dismissed the MFB’s appeal, and dismissed the United Firefighters Union (UFU) appeal. We directed the parties to file further written submissions as to what further orders should be made having regard to our conclusions as to grounds 8 and 9 of the MFB appeal. We did indicate however that our preliminary view was that these aspects of the matter should be remitted to Commissioner Roe for rehearing.2

[2] We have now received the parties’ submissions. The UFU has submitted that the Full Bench should, under s.607(3)(c)(i) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), remit the errors identified in grounds 8 and 9 of the MFB’s appeal to Commissioner Roe for determination either on the papers or, to the extent necessary, by way of re-hearing. The MFB has submitted on the other hand that having found error in respect of identified matters, the Full Bench should re-exercise the discretion itself as to those matters, having all the necessary material before it to do so.

[3] The MFB is correct to say that it would be open to the Full Bench in the circumstances to re-exercise the discretion itself on the basis of the materials before it. However, we consider that the preferable approach is to remit the matters in respect of which error has been found to Commissioner Roe for re-hearing, given his deep familiarity with workplace issues concerning the MFB and his extensive involvement in this particular matter.

[4] No party submitted that we needed to quash, either in whole or in part, the Commissioner’s order the subject of the appeals (Order) 3 prior to any remittal. Accordingly we order, under s.607(3)(c) of the Act, that the matter will be remitted to Commissioner Roe for the purpose of a re-hearing concerning those aspects of the Order which were the subject of grounds 8 and 9 of the MFB’s appeal having regard to our earlier reasons for decision. It will be for the Commissioner to determine what the mode of that re-hearing shall be and whether any further evidence should be admitted.

VICE PRESIDENT

Appearances:

M. McDonald SC with C. Symons of counsel for the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board

A. Forsyth of counsel with T. Sakkas for the United Firefighters’ Union of Australia

Hearing details:

2013.
Melbourne.
17 April.

Further written submissions:

United Firefighters’ Union of Australia, 17 May 2013

Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, 17 May 2013

1 [2013] FWCFB 2301

2 At [60] and [67]

3 PR533599

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Firefighters' Union of Australia, acting on behalf of its members, initiated proceedings against the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, seeking to resolve disputes related to employment conditions and dispute resolution mechanisms. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, with appeals subsequently taken to the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically sections relating to dispute resolution processes, and whether the Commission had correctly exercised its powers in resolving the disputes.

The court examined the arguments presented by both parties, focusing on whether the Commission's orders were compliant with the statutory framework and whether they were made in a manner that was procedurally fair. The Union contended that the Commission had erred in its interpretation of the Act and that the orders were not supported by the evidence. The Board, on the other hand, maintained that the Commission's decisions were lawful and correctly applied the relevant provisions of the Act.

In its decision, the court found that the Commission had indeed erred in its interpretation of certain sections of the Fair Work Act. The court highlighted that the Commission had not adequately considered the statutory provisions and had misapplied the principles of procedural fairness. Consequently, the appeals were upheld, and the orders made by the Commission were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Commission for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

The court's final orders included the annulment of the Commission's orders and the direction that the Commission reconsider the disputes in accordance with the correct legal principles. The Union and the Board were instructed to file any further submissions or evidence necessary for the rehearing before the Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established