1

ExtractfromQueenslandGovernmentIndustrialGazette,

dated17February,2006,Vol.181,No.7,page226]

INDUSTRIALCOURTOFQUEENSLAND

IndustrialRelationsAct1999- s.341(1) - appealagainstdecisionofindustrialcommission

TheNationalUnionofWorkersIndustrialUnionofEmployeesQueenslandAND

DetagnaPtyLtdt/aEdwardsDunlopPaper(C/2005/81)

PRESIDENTHALL / 7February2006

DECISION

Chapter6,Part1oftheIndustrialRelationsAct1999dealswithcertifiedagreements. OncemadeandcertifiedbytheQueenslandIndustrialRelationsCommissionsuchanagreementbindsthepersonsdescribedats.166. ThedecisionoftheCommissionof23September2005,nowreportedat180QGIG639,whichgivesrisetothisappealdealtwithanattemptbyanemployeeorganisationtobringitselfwithins.166(2). Theorganisation'sattempttobringitselfwithins.166(2)wasperemptorilyterminatedbytheCommissiononthegroundthattheorganisationcouldnotsatisfys.166(2)(b)(i)(B). Ontheviewofthelawmostadversetotheappellant,theCommissionwasentitledtobringmatterstoanendinthatabruptwayonlyifsatisfiedthatifalltheorganisation'sassertionoffactwereacceptedtheorganisation'sprospectsofsuccesswerefanciful.[ThedispositionofthisappealdoesnotrequireconsiderationofwhethertheCommission,whichhasnotappliedtheUniformProcedureRules,shouldfollowGrayvMorris[2004]2QdR118orDeputyCommissionerofTaxationvSalcedo[2005]QCA227.]

ThecriticalpassageintheDecisionoftheCommissionappearstobe:

"TheNationalUnionofWorkersIndustrialUnionofEmployeesQueensland(theUnion)hassatisfiedtheCommissionthat:

1.NoticewasgiventotheCommission(andtotheemployer)underparagraph(a).

2.TheUnionhasatleastonememberwhoseemploymentwillbesubjecttotheAgreement.

TheCommissionisnotsatisfiedthatanymemberaskedtheorganisationtogivethenoticereferredtoinparagraph(a). AnaffidavitfiledbytheUniondoesnotsatisfytherequirementsofthesection. Theaffidavitmerelysays:

'AsdelegatedoftheNUWQIamabletostatethatthereareotheremployeeswhoworkatEdwardsDunlopPaperwhowishtohavetheNationalUnionofWorkersIndustrialUnionofEmployeesQueenslandboundbytheproposedEdwardsDunlopPaperCertifiedAgreement.' ".

Whenthatpassageisreadwiththetranscriptoftheproceedingsof23September2005,itisplainthatthedeficiencywhichwasfoundintheaffidavitwastheabsenceofanassertionthatamemberhadaskedtheemployeeorganisationtogivethenoticereferredtoats.166(2)(i). Inmyview,therewasnosuchdeficiency.

Itseemstometobepellucidlyclearthataunionist,whoinformsher/hisorganisationthats/hewishestheorganisationtobeboundbyaparticularcertifiedagreement,implicitlytellstheorganisationthats/hewishestheorganisationtotakeallthelawfulandreasonablestepsnecessarytoachievethatoutcome. Additionally,sincetheDeponentmakesnoreferencetoemployeesholdingtheviewthattheorganisationshouldnotbeboundbytheproposedCertifiedAgreement,theonlysensewhichcanbemadeofthereferenceto "otheremployees" istotreatthelanguageasindicatingthatthoseotheremployeesholdthesameviewastheproponent:i.e.,thelanguageisanindicationthattheDeponentisanemployeewhowishestheorganisationtobeboundbytheproposedAgreement.

Doubtlesstheaffidavitmighthavebeenmorehappilyphrased. ButInoticethattheCommissionerforOathsbeforewhomtheaffidavitwassworntooktheprecautionofreadingtheaffidavittotheDeponentandsatisfyinghimselfthattheDeponentunderstoodwhatwasbeingread. Giventheinformalityofthenoticereferredtoats.166(2)(b)(i)(B),e.g.thereisnorequirementthatthenoticebeinwriting,oneshouldnotbeastutetofindfaultwithaffidavitsswornbydeponentswhose(English)literacyisquestionable.

Forcompleteness,Irejectanysuggestionthats.166(2)(b)(i)(B)justifiestheimpositionofarequirementofanaffidavitwhichswearstotheissue. Anaffidavitwhichswearstothefactssupportinganinferencethatthenoticewasgiventotheorganisationisalwaystobepreferredtoanaffidavitswearingboldlyandconclusivelythatsuchnoticewasgiven.

Thereisapaucityofevidenceabouttheactual,impliedorostensibleauthorityofdelegatesofTheNationalUnionofWorkersIndustrialUnionofEmployeesQueensland. ButatalltimestheDeponentreferstohimselfasthe "delegateoftheNUWQ". AtnotimedoestheDeponentdescribehimselfasthedelegateofhimselfandhisworkmatestoNUWQ. OnthefaceofthedocumenttheDeponentwaspurportingtoactonbehalfofTheNationalUnionofWorkersIndustrialUnionofEmployeesQueensland. ThatorganisationwasentitledtoratifythatwhichtheDeponenthaddoneandbyfilingandrelyingupontheaffidavittheorganisationseemstometohavedoneso. Inanyevent,bydeliveringtheaffidavittotheorganisationtheDeponentconveyedhisownandhisworkmates' requestthatthenoticeats.166(2)(a)shouldbegiventotheCommissionandtotheemployees.

ThedecisionoftheCommissionmustbesetaside. Itisnotappropriatetodetermineontheappealwhetherintruths.166(2)(b)(i)(B)wassatisfied. IsaythatintheknowledgethatontheappealtheRespondentsoughttointroduceevidencewhich(ifaccepted)wouldmeettheassertionsintheaffidavit. TheRespondentisperfectlyentitledtoleadthatevidence. TheproceedingsintheCommissionwerenotproceedingsinwhichtheRespondentinterruptedtheAppellant'scaseandsoughttohavethematterssummarilydetermined. Itfollowsthatitisunnecessarytodeterminewhetheraparticipantinproceedingsunders.166whomakessuchasubmissionistakentoelectnottocallevidence. (Ifthequestionwasresolvedintheaffirmative,theremightbeanissueastowhetherinterventionbytheCommissionwhichsparesapartytheneedtoelectisthedenialofnaturaljusticetootherparties). ButthepropertribunalinwhichtoleadevidenceandtoresolveconflictsinevidenceistheCommission:notthecourt.

IntheabsenceofafullargumentastowhetherfailurebytheCommissiontodischargetheobligationats.166(2)renderscertificationvoidorvoidable,IdeclinetheAppellant'sinvitationtosuspendtheoperationoftheEdwardsDunlopPaper(Murrarie)Employment - CertifiedAgreement2005. IsimplyremittotheCommissionthequestionwhethertheCertifiedAgreementbindsTheNationalUnionofWorkersIndustrialUnionofEmployeesQueensland. Giventhebasisuponwhichtheappealsucceeded,theproceedingsintheCommissionmustbedealtwithbyamemberoftheCommissionotherthanthememberwhodeliveredthedecisionof23September2005.

Dated7February2006

D.R.HALL,President.
Released: 7February2006 / Appearances:
MsT.ButlerofHallPayneLawyers,fortheAppellant.
MsJ.OliverofthePrintingIndustryAssociationofAustralia,fortheRespondent.

GovernmentPrinter,Queensland

TheStateofQueensland2006.