United Workers Union v Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department
Case
•
[2025] SASCA 80
•17 July 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
United Workers Union v Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department [2025] SASCA 80
[2025] SASCA 80
17 July 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The United Workers Union sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal. The dispute concerned the interpretation and application of clause 15 of an Enterprise Agreement, specifically relating to the outsourcing and contracting out of work performed by weekly paid employees. The Chief Executive of the Attorney-General's Department was the respondent.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether permission to appeal should be granted, given that the central point of contention had been abandoned before the Full Bench. The court was also required to consider the operation of clause 15 of the Enterprise Agreement, which contained provisions regarding the employer's agreement not to outsource, contract out, or privatise work, and to maintain wage parity commitments for outsourced or contracted work.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that permission to appeal should be refused because the specific legal point the Union wished to raise on appeal had been abandoned during proceedings before the Full Bench. The court noted that the Union had not disputed the Chief Executive's position that entering into an Enterprise Agreement did not bind the hands of Cabinet or Ministers regarding policy or procurement decisions, nor had it challenged the proposition that the Chief Executive did not bind the Crown as its agent. The court observed that the initial decision of the Tribunal at first instance had found that while there was an intention for clause 15.3 to apply to contracts for outsourced work, there was no evidence that the State Government, beyond the Chief Executive, agreed to be bound. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence of actual detriment suffered by the Union or its members due to the outsourcing arrangements in question.
Consequently, the application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused, and the Union was ordered to pay the costs of the Chief Executive.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether permission to appeal should be granted, given that the central point of contention had been abandoned before the Full Bench. The court was also required to consider the operation of clause 15 of the Enterprise Agreement, which contained provisions regarding the employer's agreement not to outsource, contract out, or privatise work, and to maintain wage parity commitments for outsourced or contracted work.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that permission to appeal should be refused because the specific legal point the Union wished to raise on appeal had been abandoned during proceedings before the Full Bench. The court noted that the Union had not disputed the Chief Executive's position that entering into an Enterprise Agreement did not bind the hands of Cabinet or Ministers regarding policy or procurement decisions, nor had it challenged the proposition that the Chief Executive did not bind the Crown as its agent. The court observed that the initial decision of the Tribunal at first instance had found that while there was an intention for clause 15.3 to apply to contracts for outsourced work, there was no evidence that the State Government, beyond the Chief Executive, agreed to be bound. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence of actual detriment suffered by the Union or its members due to the outsourcing arrangements in question.
Consequently, the application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused, and the Union was ordered to pay the costs of the Chief Executive.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Intention
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
The State of South Australia In Right Of The Department For Education And Child Development v Dolan
[2021] SASCFC 30
Public Service Association (SA) Inc v State of South Australia
[2012] SASCFC 66
Dial a Tow Australia Pty Ltd v Campbell
[2024] SASCA 151