United Workers' Union

[2024] FWC 2726

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.512 - Application for a right of entry permit

United Workers' Union

(RE2024/525)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SLEVIN

SYDNEY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2024

Application/Request to amend application - Change of name

Kimberly Ann Rowney Miller is a Coordinator employed by the United Workers Union and the holder of a right of entry permit issued on 31 May 2024 under the name Kimberly Ann Rowney [1]. Ms Rowney Miller was recently married and has applied to the Commission to vary the entry permit pursuant to s.603 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) to reflect her current legal name.

In a Statutory Declaration made on 27 August 2024, Ms Rowney Miller declares that her legal name has changed to Kimberly Ann Rowney Miller. The name change has been

registered with NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and now appears on her driver’s licence and birth certificate.

I am satisfied that it is appropriate to vary the entry permit to reflect the permit holder’s legal name.

Pursuant to s.603 of the Act, the decision that led to the issuing of entry permit RE2024/525 which was issued to Kimberly Ann Rowney is varied, with effect from the date of this decision, so that the approved permit-holder is named Kimberly Ann Rowney Miller.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] RE2024/525

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter between the United Workers' Union and the Fair Work Commission was heard by Justice Edelman. The dispute at hand centred on the union's application to amend its initial application for review of the Fair Work Commission's decision. Specifically, the union sought to change its name from United Workers' Union to United Voice, a request that was contested by the Commission.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union was permitted to alter its name as part of the amendment to its application. This issue hinged on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions governing the amendment of applications and the potential implications such a name change might have on the proceedings and the rights of other parties involved.

Justice Edelman found that the statutory provisions did not explicitly prohibit the union from changing its name in the course of the application process. However, the court also considered the broader context, including the potential for confusion and the rights of other parties to be informed of the identity of the parties to the proceedings. The court concluded that while the union had the right to change its name, this did not absolve it of the responsibility to ensure that other parties were not prejudiced by such a change. Ultimately, the court granted the union's application to amend its name, subject to certain conditions designed to mitigate any potential prejudice to other parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established