WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato - [2018] FCA 2100

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato [2018] FCA 2100

File number: QUD 724 of 2018

Judge: ALLSOP CJ

Date of judgment: 21 December 2018

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether issue of sufficient importance for s 20(1A) direction to be made – direction made for jurisdiction in matter to be exercised by a Full Court

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 86

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 20(1A)

Cases cited: WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131

Date of last submissions: 7 December 2018

Registry: Queensland

Division: Fair Work Division

National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 12

Counsel for the Applicant:
I Neil with D Chin

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ashurst Australia

Counsel for the Respondent: C Murdoch QC with J Dwyer

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Franklin Athanasellis Cullen

Counsel for the First Intervener: C O’Grady with B O’Brien

Solicitor for the First Intervener:

MinterEllison

Counsel for the Second Intervener and the Proposed Third Intervener:

S Crawshaw SC with R E Reed

Solicitor for the Second Intervener and the Proposed Third Intervener:

Slater and Gordon

Counsel for the Other: J Fetter

Solicitor for the Other:

Adero Law

ORDERS

QUD 724 of 2018

BETWEEN:
WORKPAC PTY LTD ACN 111 076 012

Applicant

AND:
ROBERT ROSSATO

Respondent

MINISTER FOR JOBS AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

First Intervener

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MARITIME, MINING AND ENERGY UNION

Second Intervener

PAUL ALEXANDER SKENE

Proposed Third Intervener

BEAU DANIEL MEANEY

Other

JUDGE:

ALLSOP CJ

DATE OF ORDER:

21 DECEMBER 2018

1.The Chief Justice directs that under s 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter be exercised by a Full Court.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
2.Leave be granted to the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union to intervene in the proceeding subject to their own risk as to costs.
3.The application of Paul Alexander Skene to intervene be stood over to the hearing of the matter.
4.The proceedings be expedited for hearing as soon as practicable after the Full Court sittings in February 2019 are over.
5.The proceeding be remitted to Justice Bromberg for case management.

REASONS FOR DIRECTION AND JUDGMENT
ALLSOP CJ:

Before the Court is an interlocutory application by the applicant for a direction to be made by me under s 20(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the FCA Act) that the jurisdiction in the matter be heard by a Full Court.
Directions of this kind in listings are not customarily attended by the detail or formality as has occurred here. That is not a criticism of the parties or the interveners who have provided me with their views. The matter is one of some public importance. These should not be seen as reasons for formal orders, but an explanation for my decision.
The application and the debate arise out of a Full Court decision of 16 August 2018,

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato

Details

AGLC: WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato [2018] FCA 2100
Case: [2018] FCA 2100
Decision Date: 21 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato, the matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute involved an application by WorkPac Pty Ltd for a direction under section 20(1A) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was to have the matter decided by a Full Court rather than a single Commissioner. The issue at hand was whether the matter had sufficient importance to warrant a direction under section 20(1A), which mandates that a Full Court must decide the matter if it is of sufficient importance.

The central legal question for the Commission was whether the matter had sufficient importance to warrant a direction under section 20(1A) of the Fair Work Act. This involved an assessment of the potential impact and complexity of the case, as well as the broader implications of the decision. The Commission had to consider whether the matter, if decided by a single Commissioner, might lead to inconsistent outcomes or significant legal uncertainty.

In reaching its decision, the Commission determined that the matter did indeed have sufficient importance to warrant a direction under section 20(1A). The Commission found that the case involved complex legal and factual issues, and the potential impact of the decision was significant. As such, it was appropriate for the matter to be decided by a Full Court to ensure consistency and to provide a higher level of scrutiny. Consequently, the Commission made the direction for the matter to be heard by a Full Court.

Following the Commission's determination, the matter was referred to a Full Court for further proceedings. The Full Court will now consider the merits of the application and make a final decision on the issues in dispute.

Orders