FWC Bulletin

4 August 2022 Volume 20/22 with selected Decision Summaries for the month ending Sunday, 31 July 2022.

Contents

Online Form F17 now available

New materials available in document search

Fast Food Award extensively varied

Decisions of the Fair Work Commission

Other Fair Work Commission decisions of note

Subscription Options

Websites of Interest

Fair Work Commission Addresses

Online Form F17 now available

We publicly launched the new online Form F17 (employers declaration) this week. This continues our commitment to improving the way we deliver our services.

The online form will assist parties in lodging compliant declarations by prompting them for mandatory information and alerting them to incomplete or inaccurate information. The form also has a sharing functionality which allows users to share the form with people from their organisation or from another organisation.

For more information, please read the Online Form F17 now available news item on our website.

New materials available in document search

We have been progressively improving our document search  over the past 6 months.

Our aim is to provide you with a powerful search tool to help you find case materials, agreements and awards as easily as possible.  

Many of the improvements have been made in response to your feedback. One of our most recent successes was the addition of over 300,000 decisions and agreements.

The tool now contains: 

Over the coming months, you can expect to see improved functionality and a greater library of documents. We are currently working on a new interface to display major case material. We are also working to provide greater access to older materials. There is still a substantial amount of work to go however, we expect the key groups of documents will be available later this year.  

We appreciate the feedback we have received so far and encourage you to continue to provide it. Our document search is designed to provide you, our users, with a powerful tool to search our archive of documents. Simply email feedback@fwc.gov.au to provide your feedback.  

Fast Food Award extensively varied

Existing awards are being changed extensively as a result of the 4 yearly review of modern awards. The Fast Food Industry Award has also been reviewed and rewritten using plain language principles, to make it easier to understand and use.

Most modern awards have already been changed, and are now available from the Find an award page on our website.

The technical and drafting matters for the Fast Food Industry Award 2010 have been completed. The varied award has been issued and started operating 28 July 2022.

Any outstanding substantive or common issues claims that have not yet been determined will be incorporated into the varied award by way of a subsequent variation determination.

If you are subscribed to updates for the Fast Food Industry Award, your subscription to our email service will not change.

You can read the new version of the award on the Find an award page on our website.

To see the decisions relating to this award, go to [2022] FWCFB 123 and [2022] FWC 1722.

Decisions of the Fair Work Commission

The summaries of decisions contained in this Bulletin are not a substitute for the published reasons for the Commission's decisions nor are they to be used in any later consideration of the Commission's reasons.

Summaries of selected decisions signed and filed during the month ending Sunday 31 July 2022.

 

1

GENERAL PROTECTIONS – contractor or employeess.386, 400, 604 Fair Work Act 2009appealFull Bench – 2 appellants jointly lodged an appeal against first instance decision to dismiss first appellant's application under s.365 and second appellant's application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act – at first instance, applications were dismissed on basis that neither appellant had been dismissed under s.386 because neither of them were employees of respondent – Full Bench granted permission to appeal – Full Bench concluded that Commission's approach at first instance to the contract executed by first appellant and respondent (Jamrok Agreement) was flawed because it paid insufficient attention to the text of the Jamrok Agreement, did not take into account the circumstances surrounding its making, was somewhat selective in its consideration of subsequent conduct, and did not take into account circumstances of first appellant's appointment as sales manager – principles concerning proper approach to identifying parties to a contract were summarised in TregidgaTrifunovski considered – Full Bench found that it was not in dispute that, subject to very limited inferred variations arising from first appellant's appointment as sales manager, the terms of the engagement were comprehensively contained in the Jamrok Agreement and accordingly, the principles stated in Personnel Contracting should be applied – when 'characterising a relationship regulated by a wholly written, comprehensive contract which is not a sham…the question is to be determined solely by reference to…that contract…It is necessary to focus on those aspects of the contractual relationship which bear more directly upon whether the worker's work was so subordinate to the employer's business that it can be seen to have been performed as an employee…rather than as part of an independent enterprise…Existence of a contractual right to control the activities of the worker is a major signifier of an employment relationship' [Personnel Contracting] – Full Bench concluded that Jamrok Agreement pointed strongly to the existence of an employment relationship between first appellant and respondent – first, Jamrok Agreement requires personal performance by first appellant and no provision is made for the delegation of the work – second, Jamrok Agreement confers a right on respondent to control first appellant's activities to a very high degree – third, Jamrok Agreement makes plain that first appellant is required to work in the business of respondent and is subordinate to that business – Jamrok Agreement requires first appellant to 'act loyally' towards respondent and not to engage in any business that conflicts with respondent's business, without respondent's consent – Jamrok Agreement effectively conferred on respondent the right to require exclusive service on the part of first appellant – Full Bench concluded that first appellant was employee of respondent and was dismissed within meaning of s.386 – in relation to second appellant, Commission found at first instance that she was engaged pursuant to a wholly oral contract with respondent, and neither party contested that finding in this appeal – Full Bench noted it was difficult from the evidence to identify the terms of the contract – at first instance, Commission did not make any clear findings about what the terms were – Full Bench found no proper evidentiary basis for drawing an inference that second appellant was engaged on the same terms as those contained in the Jamrok Agreement – the contractual terms identified by the Full Bench as governing relationship between second appellant and respondent disclosed only a very limited right by respondent to control how, when and where second appellant performed her work – no requirement for second appellant to subordinate her conduct to respondent's business interests, in contrast to the position under Jamrok Agreement – Full Bench noted that appellants bear the burden of persuading Full Bench that Commission at first instance erred in finding that second appellant was not an employee – Full Bench not persuaded of such error – in respect of first appellant, appeal is upheld, Commission's first instance decision is quashed, and application is remitted to be dealt with in accordance with s.368 – in respect of second appellant, appeal is dismissed

Appeal by Chambers and Anor against decision of Williams C of 24 March 2022 [[2022] FWC 332] Re: Broadway Homes P/L t/a Broadway Homes

C2022/2370

[2022] FWCFB 129

Hatcher VP
Clancy DP
Young DP

Sydney

13 July 2022

 

2

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – extension of timedate dismissal took effectmeritvaccination policys.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – unfair dismissal application – respondent raised jurisdictional objection that application was lodged outside 21-day period in Fair Work Act – parties in dispute about date on which dismissal took effect – applicant was a radiographer – respondent operates a network of clinics providing medical imaging and diagnostic services – respondent implemented policy in October 2021 requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 – subsequently, Queensland Government issued public health orders which required healthcare workers to be double vaccinated by 15 December 2021, otherwise they were prohibited from entering healthcare settings – applicant attended a virtual show cause meeting on 15 December – at a further virtual meeting on 17 December, applicant was told her employment was being terminated and she would be paid 5 weeks' in lieu of notice – Commission noted the following principles from previous cases including Ayub v NSW Trains regarding when a dismissal takes effect (subject to some exceptions not relevant to present case): an employer's failure to provide written notice of termination will not necessarily mean that a dismissal has not taken effect; a termination requires plain and unambiguous communication by words or conduct; a dismissal does not take effect until it is communicated to employee and cannot take effect retrospectively; the 21-day period to lodge an unfair dismissal application does not commence before an employee becomes aware that they have been dismissed or at least has a reasonable opportunity to become aware – Commission concluded that at meeting on 17 December, applicant was told she was to be dismissed but there was no definitive statement or conduct that indicated that dismissal would take effect on 17 December – applicant was not required to return keys or property on that date and there was no evidence that her belongings were packed or removed immediately on conclusion of meeting – Commission found that respondent stated its position on the effective date of dismissal in letter sent on 21 December but even then, the letter makes no reference to 17 December meeting and does not contain a confirmation that applicant was dismissed on that date – 'Absent a plain and unambiguous statement at the meeting, that the Applicant's employment was terminated with immediate effect, the letter of 21 December could not operate retrospectively to confirm her dismissal on 17 December…' – Raven and Jandrek distinguished – dismissal took effect on 21 December – application made within 21-day period – jurisdictional objection dismissed – in relation to the merits of applicant's case, Commission expressed provisional view that some arguments in application would be unlikely to succeed if pressed at the hearing and would likely be irrelevant to whether the dismissal was unfair – Commission noted: Commission is not a Court and has no power to make a binding declaration about validity of legislation including public health orders; to date, Australian Courts have upheld validity of COVID-19 public health orders issued by state governments including requirements that particular workers are vaccinated; Australian Courts have rejected the argument that public health orders issued by state governments are inconsistent with federal law or are invalid because of s.109 of the Constitution; when applicant dismissed, respondent was legally prohibited from allowing her to attend workplace unless she provided evidence of vaccination; a requirement that applicant comply with a public health order by being vaccinated in order to continue to work for an employer does not involve coercion or forced participation in a medical trial; incentives to encourage employees to be vaccinated are not coercion; applicant entitled to choose to be unvaccinated, but consequence of that choice will result in employer legally excluding her from workplace; the choice may be difficult, but it is still a choice; COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in Australia pursuant to Commonwealth legislation and employers are not required to prove their safety or efficacy to employees or to Commission; employers are not required to lobby governments to revoke or amend their directives before employers dismiss employees for non-compliance with such directives – Commission observed that 'arguments canvassed in [applicant's] application…have been emphatically rejected in numerous cases before Courts and the Commission. While the Applicant is entitled to a hearing…any expectation that such arguments will be entertained by the Commission is misconceived and it is improbable that a different decision will be made in respect of those arguments' – application listed for mention

Owens v I-Med Radiology Ltd

U2022/599

[2022] FWC 1823

Asbury DP

Brisbane

12 July 2022

 

3

RIGHT OF ENTRY – revocation of permits.510 Fair Work Act 2009 – on 8 June 2022 the Commission suspended the permit holder's permit under s.510(1) of the Fair Work Act and banned the issue of any further entry permit until 7 September 2022 under s.510(5) – Court had imposed a pecuniary penalty on permit holder in February 2022 – permit was due to expire on 9 July 2022 – permit holder returned the suspended permit to the Commission – on 11 March 2022 the Court imposed a further pecuniary penalty on the permit holder which resulted in Commission's jurisdiction under s.510(1)(d) being enlivened – union contended that s.510 requires Commission to suspend or revoke 'each entry permit held by a permit holder' and that the permit holder did not hold a permit and thus was not a permit holder, so Commission had no jurisdiction – Australian Building and Construction Commissioner contended that the permit holder continued to be a permit holder notwithstanding the suspension and return of his permit, and that action may be taken under s.510(1) until the permit expired – Commission not persuaded that revocation of the permit would be harsh, unjust or unreasonable in the circumstances – Commission considered that having regard to the nature of the conduct in which the permit holder engaged there was no warrant for imposing a period longer than the 'minimum suspension period' – Commission ordered that pursuant to s.510(1), the entry permit be revoked and pursuant to s.510(5) the issue of any further entry permit to the permit holder be banned for 12 months commencing on 7 July 2022.

In the matter of the Entry Permit of Blakeley

RE2022/224

[2022] FWC 1730

Gostencnik DP

Melbourne

7 July 2022

 

4

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconductemployer policiess.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – unfair dismissal application – applicant worked as a Labourer at respondent's engineering workshop – respondent claims applicant was terminated due to conducting personal work in business hours, inefficient work practices, taking sick leave for personal duties, and falsifying time sheets – Commission was not convinced by the reason of 'inefficient work practices' – it was significant that there was no record of performance management or formal warnings in relation to this – Commission also found in favour of applicant in relation to allegation that he took sick leave for personal duties – no evidence was presented in relation to the issues with timesheets – Commission was satisfied, on the evidence, that applicant had engaged in misconduct by conducting personal work during business hours, without manager's approval – Commission found this a valid reason for dismissal – the decision to dismiss applicant was made in a meeting where applicant was not present – the video footage relied upon was not made available to applicant prior to the dismissal – Commission was not satisfied that applicant was appropriately notified of the valid reason prior to the decision being made – applicant was not notified of the purpose of the meeting where he was dismissed – Commission found that applicant was not given meaningful opportunity to respond to the valid reason for his dismissal – Commission was not satisfied that applicant was given valid warnings regarding unsatisfactory performance – respondent conceded that no formal warnings were given – Commission also found the absence of a formal warning or the opportunity for applicant to respond to allegations outweighs the valid reason for dismissal – dismissal unjust and unfair – reinstatement not appropriate [C-Tech Laser] – applicant took several weeks to secure alternate work – payment of compensation is appropriate [Nguyen] – brief, 12 month period of applicant's service reduces compensation – applicant would have remained in employment a further 8 weeks – Commission applied approach in Sprigg to calculate compensation – compensation reduced by 50% due to findings of misconduct – respondent to pay applicant $1,866.05 within 14 days.

Brett v HB Engineering (Tas) P/L

U2022/1979

[2022] FWC 1695

Masson DP

Melbourne

7 July 2022

 

5

INDUSTRIAL ACTION – suspension of protected industrial actionendangering lifeeconomic impact of industrial actions.424 Fair Work Act 2009 – application to suspend or terminate protected industrial action – respondent took, and proposed to take, various forms of industrial action including ceasing cleaning of carriages and other areas, preventing and/or impeding the construction of the new Sydney Metro lines, banning the use of sets of trains, and banning transpositions – the applicant raised issues with multiple incidents of industrial action by the respondent – the main issue being that the protected action would threaten to endanger the life, the personal safety or health, or the welfare, of the population or of part of it, or cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it as per s.424 – the respondent made various concessions to the planned protected action both before and after the filing of the applications in this matter, including removing specific train set bans and allowing members to work on the Sydney Metro project – Commission observed s.424 meant to be triggered in exceptional circumstances and where significant harm is being caused [National Tertiary Education Union v U of SA] – separate consideration must be given to each protected industrial action [Australian and International Pilots Association] – if one notified action offended s.424, all notified actions would lose their protection [s 413(7)] – applicant considered that concessions were only made as 'window dressing' prior to the application being heard and bans would be reimposed after a determination – the Commission found no evidence to support this, additionally it would be necessary for any reimposed bans to offend s.424 – the Commission considered that in relation to the applicant's economic evidence, the evidence produced was difficult to understand and did not convincingly show significant damage – the Commission considered the Sydney Metro bans unamended by the concessions in relation to its economic harm – it determined that there was no significant damage that would be caused by these bans – the Commission could not establish any significant/relevant risk in the train set bans – the Commission found that there was no relevant risk from the transposition ban as the respondent undertook to lift the ban if any such risk becomes evident – the Commission did not consider there was adequate proof to show relevant risk in relation to the maintenance ban – the Commission found that in relation to the cleaning ban, there was a lack of evidence to support any real risk as described by the applicant – it was also found that the respondent has shown a focus on safety and has taken steps to ameliorate possible risks – the Commission ultimately found no part of the protected action exhibited relevant/significant risk – application dismissed.

The State of NSW and Ors v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union and Anor

B2022/641 and Ors

[2022] FWC 1746

Cross DP

Sydney

9 July 2022

 

6

ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreementvaccination policys.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant employed as a marine pilot – in December 2021, respondent introduced a policy requiring its employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 – applicant alleged that the direction in the policy to be vaccinated is not a reasonable direction – respondent contended that it properly consulted with relevant stakeholders before introducing the policy, and that the policy is a lawful and reasonable direction – respondent raised jurisdictional objection that Commission did not have jurisdiction to deal with dispute because applicant had not undertaken one of the mandatory steps in the dispute resolution procedure in the Port Authority of New South Wales Sydney Marine Pilots Enterprise Agreement 2019-2023 – Agreement says the 'matter in dispute shall, in the first instance, be discussed between the Marine Pilot(a) and their line Manager for resolution' – respondent contended that applicant failed to 'discuss' his dispute with his line manager 'for resolution' and was therefore not entitled to refer the dispute to the Commission – Commission found that on 14 December 2021, applicant sent an email to his manager which 'unambiguously enlivened the Dispute Settlement Procedure under the Agreement' – respondent's Head of People & Culture emailed applicant, described himself as the point of contact for the dispute and told applicant to direct any further correspondence to him – Commission found that applicant was told not to direct any further correspondence to his line manager about the dispute – no evidence of line manager or Head of People & Culture ever making themselves available to discuss the dispute – Commission held that on respondent's construction of Agreement, if a line manager is unwilling or unable to discuss a dispute raised by an employee, the employee has no right to escalate the matter any further or refer the dispute to the Commission and if that was correct, 'then the purposes of the dispute resolution procedure are easily defeated by the [respondent] directing an employee not to discuss a matter with their line manager, or by the [respondent] simply refusing to discuss the matter at all' – Commission found that applicant discussed is dispute with his line manager and therefore met the requirement of the Agreement – Commission observed that respondent is a State-Owned Corporations and presumably subject to the NSW Government's model litigant policy – Commission found respondent's jurisdictional objection was without merit, wasted considerable hearing time and unreasonably caused applicant to incur additional legal expense to defend – jurisdictional objection dismissed – Commission found that respondent undertook extensive consultation on the policy before it was introduced – satisfied consultation process was sufficient to meet respondent's obligations under work health and safety legislation and under Agreement – Mt Arthur Coal considered – Commission satisfied the direction to be vaccinated contained in the policy is a lawful and reasonable direction

Clark v Ports Authority of New South Wales

C2022/1316

[2022] FWC 1915

Easton DP

Sydney

20 July 2022

 

7

ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreementjurisdictionreferral of state powerss.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for Commission to deal with dispute under s.739 of the Fair Work Act regarding Victoria Police (Police Officers, Protective Services Officers, Police Reservists and Police Recruits) Enterprise Agreement 2019 – the Fair Work Act applies to 'national system employees' – s.30C extends the definition of national system employee to include law enforcement officers of a State to whom s.30E(1) applies – s.30E(1) enables a State to make a reference of power providing for law enforcement officers to be treated as employees – Victoria has passed the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009 (Vic) (Referral Act) – Commission noted that a Full Bench stated, in the context of Commission's power to make a workplace determination, that Commission did not have jurisdiction to include in the workplace determination any terms which pertained to an excluded subject matter, because the Referral Act was the sole source of Commission's power in the proceedings [Parks Victoria] – respondent raised jurisdictional objection that the subject matter of clause 119 of the Agreement (namely, physical or mental fitness of a law enforcement officer and termination of employment of a law enforcement officer) was excluded from the reference of power under the Referral Act and therefore beyond the power of the Commission – issue is whether Commission is precluded from dealing with a dispute about clause 119 of Agreement due to Referral Act – Commission concluded that the State of Victoria, by s.5(2)(b) of the Referral Act, has reserved to itself all matters pertaining to the termination of employment of law enforcement officers and all matters pertaining to the physical or mental fitness of law enforcement officers – Commission held that it is precluded from dealing with the dispute because clause 119.17 of Agreement pertains to physical and mental fitness and termination of employment and clause 119.13 pertains to physical and mental fitness – jurisdictional objection upheld – application dismissed

The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch) t/a The Police Association of Victoria v Victoria Police/Chief Commissioner of Police

C2022/973

[2022] FWC 1862

Bell DP

Melbourne

26 July 2022

 

8

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancycompensation capss.392, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for an unfair dismissal remedy – applicant worked as full-time Junior Mobilisation Officer after a four-week trial period as an alleged casual employee starting on 29 March 2021 – applicant contended she was never notified of casual trial period and her work pattern reflected permanent employment – applicant's role made redundant on 20 October 2021 – applicant contended she was not consulted in accordance with the Act and she should have been redeployed in the business – respondent submitted two jurisdictional objections being applicant had not met minimum employment period due to casual trial period and genuine redundancy – respondent did not participate in proceedings other than filing an initial response – Commission heard matter in respondent's absence – minimum employment period objection considered – found applicant was not a casual employee during trial period as she had been offered continuing and indefinite work on an agreed pattern – found respondent's reliance on a 'casual trial period' as not forming part of minimum employment was not appropriate and that parties cannot contract out of the Act – held applicant had completed minimum employment period – genuine redundancy objection considered – found respondent made a definite decision concerning organisational changes that would impact the applicant and it did not advise applicant of this in writing prior to in person discussion – consideration whether redeployment would have been appropriate – found applicant could have been redeployed to a publicly advertised role – held redundancy not genuine – held no valid reason for dismissal and that applicant had been unfairly dismissed – remedy considered – observed failure of respondent to participate in hearing left Commission unable to determine whether reinstatement would have been appropriate – compensation considered – found no suggestion of deficiency in applicant's performance or conduct – found that if respondent had properly consulted about the redundancy the applicant would have been redeployed to an alternative role – found applicant would have remained in employment for one year – found applicant has mitigated her loss through other employment and that she had been paid 1 week's wages in lieu of notice – remuneration that would have been earned minus income from other employment and minus payment in lieu of notice equalled $31,980.50 – compensation cap in s.392(5) considered – compensation capped at $27,500.00 – compensation of $27,500.00 ordered.

Graydon v Talent Konnects P/L t/a Talentko

U2021/9742

[2022] FWC 1905

Williams C

Perth

20 July 2022

 

9

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – remedyreinstatementvaccination policys.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – unfair dismissal application – applicant worked as a pilot for the respondent, a prominent regional airline – applicant was dismissed in a meeting on 1 December 2021 – written confirmation the next day – the dismissal was due to the applicant's failure to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as per the respondent's vaccination policy – the applicant was vaccinated with the Novavax vaccination at the earliest opportunity, after it was approved for use in Australia – first vaccination was 17 February 2022, second on 10 March 2022 – the policy required staff to be fully vaccinated by 1 November 2021 and show proof or complete a declaration by 16 October 2021 or risk termination – the applicant indicated on the declaration that he would not be vaccinated – the respondent sent a show cause letter on 26 October 2021 indicating that he would not be able to work or be paid, he may use accrued annual leave while the matter was being resolved, the respondent will confer with the applicant on other options – other options included taking leave, alternate duties or termination – the applicant responded to the letter on 2 November 2021 – respondent replied giving the applicant until 30 November to make a decision regarding vaccination – the applicant provided multiple alternatives for temporary duties for a maximum of 6 months until he can comply with the policy – the respondent rejected the proposal – a dismissal meeting was held on 1 December 2021 – the Commission found the reason for dismissal was valid, further bolstered by being unable to fly into various states and airports – the Commission found that the applicant was given an opportunity to respond to reasons related to capacity or conduct – found that the respondent did not adequately explain the 'casual simulator position' that they offered as an alternative to the applicant – the applicant indicated that if had he been aware of the details that were later explained, he would have taken the offer – the Commission found that the respondent appeared to have 'lumped' the applicant with other employees seeking to delay compliance due to their anti-vaccination stance – the 'lumping' preventing the respondent from allowing the applicant to use his accrued leave until the applicant's proposed vaccination date – the Commission found that there was substantive procedural unfairness from the failure to adequately discuss options with the applicant despite options being stated in their vaccine policy – dismissal was harsh and unfair – remedy considered – reinstatement appropriate in the circumstances as trust and confidence not lost – Commission observed parties had remained in respectful communication – orders made for reinstatement – reappointment with continuity of applicant's service and seniority – no order made for lost pay as dismissal brought about by the exercise of applicant's personal prerogative not to be vaccinated.

Dean v Regional Express Holdings Ltd

U2021/11968

[2022] FWC 1448

McKenna C

Sydney

8 July 2022

 

10

CASE PROCEDURES – costsindemnity costsss.400A, 600 Fair Work Act 2009 – original application for unfair dismissal remedy dismissed 6 August 2021 – respondent Kailash Lawyers made application for costs order against applicant on 21 August 2021 – hearing deferred pending outcome of appeal – appeal against original decision dismissed 24 November 2021 – Kailash sought order for costs on the bases that application for unfair dismissal remedy entailed unreasonable acts or omissions which caused Kailash to incur costs, was brought vexatiously, and/or was brought without reasonable cause – Kailash submitted applicant Mr Patial's conduct amounted to unreasonable acts causing Kailash to incur costs – submitted applicant's conduct unreasonably prolonged proceedings – submitted that applicant, amongst other actions, repeatedly ignored directions not to cross-examine witnesses on labels of third parties not party to proceedings, cross-examined witnesses on irrelevant material, repeatedly cross-examined witnesses on same material, made baseless allegations against Kailash's representatives, and rejected a reasonable offer of settlement – applicant submitted that costs application be dismissed and matter should be heard de novo – applicant submitted Kailash's representatives had provided false claims including false service costs to Commission for financial benefit and should be cross-examined – Commission declined to summarise several of applicant's submissions as they were not relevant to costs application – applicant submitted respondent's offer of settlement was not reasonable – applicant submitted claim not vexatious or unreasonable – applicant submitted that costs for work undertaken by Kailash's representative Ms Christie not able to be recovered as Ms Christie not a solicitor or paid agent – Commission considered Ms Christie a paid agent for the purposes of the Act and the Fair Work Regulations 2009 – Commission satisfied applicant caused costs to be incurred because of an unreasonable act or omission in connection with the conduct or continuation of the application – Commission not satisfied applicant engaged in unreasonable continuation by refusing settlement – Commission accepted applicant may not have wished to release any form of claims in relation to matters not before the Commission, including claimed underpayments – Commission found applicant's acts constituted unreasonable acts in connection with the conduct of the application – Commission considered applicant repeatedly failed to concentrate on relevant matters despite advice – Commission found applicant's application had central purpose of pursuing underpayments – Commission satisfied unfair dismissal application made vexatiously – Commission satisfied indemnity costs order appropriate – Commission encouraged parties to agree on costs – matter stood-over – Kailash to file and serve advice on agreement no later than 5:00pm Tuesday 9 August 2022 – Commission to consider next steps if agreement not reached.

Patial v Kailash Lawyers P/L t/a Kailash Lawyers and Consultants

U2020/11942

[2022] FWC 1449

McKenna C

Sydney

18 July 2022

 

11

GENERAL PROTECTIONS – contractor or employeess.365, 386 Fair Work Act 2009 – general protections application involving dismissal – applicant contended that he commenced employment as an Operations Manager in July 2021 – first respondent raised jurisdictional objection that applicant was never employed by first respondent – Commission must determine whether applicant was dismissed as an employee before it can exercise powers under s.368 of the Fair Work Act [Milford] – in Personnel Contracting and Jamsek, High Court revised the applicable legal principles to determine whether a person is an employee or an independent contractorCommission referred to Waring v Hage Retail Group P/L, which analysed the 2 High Court cases – High Court has largely rejected an examination of the relationship between parties across its life span and has stated that contractual terms, where those terms can be ascertained and where the contract is not a sham, will determine the true nature of the relationship [Waring v Hage Retail Group P/L] – the extent of a contractual right to control, as evident from the terms of the contract itself, remains a major signifier of an employment relationship [Waring v Hage Retail Group P/L] – 'Amongst the caveats expressed by the Court, is that a mere label acting as a subterfuge to the true nature of the contractual relationship will not determine the status of the parties. In this respect at least the law remains unchanged by these recent decisions' [Waring v Hage Retail Group P/L] – Commission observed that the document signed by the applicant, which was titled 'Preliminary Engagement Agreement', read like a typical employment agreement, provided for paid leave, and referred to employment and the National Employment Standards in the Fair Work Act – Commission found that applicant was not offered a contracting agreement and was offered and accepted an employment agreement prepared by the first respondent – second respondent attempted to declare that the agreement was not valid because she did not sign or return it to applicant – Commission found that second respondent amended the agreement, sent it to applicant, asked him to sign and return it, and when he did, never said by fact or deed that the first respondent had no intention of being bound by it – second respondent requested applicant's tax file number and completed superannuation forms – applicant stated in the tax file number declaration form that he was a full-time employee and returned the signed forms – second respondent did not correct applicant – Commission was satisfied that first respondent offered applicant employment as an Operations Manager – applicant accepted the offer and commenced employment – his employment ceased on 26 November 2021 at the initiative of the first respondent – jurisdictional objection dismissed – parties to advise Commission whether they wish to engage in conciliation

Houston v Ethical Developments P/L and Anor

C2021/8686

[2022] FWC 1826

Hunt C

Brisbane

19 July 2022

 

12

ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – termination of agreementss.225, 226 Fair Work Act 2009 – application by an employee of respondent for termination of SecureMetro Employee Collective Agreement 2013 – nominal expiry date of Agreement is 30 June 2017 – applicant regularly works weekends, public holidays and overtime – if Agreement terminated, Security Services Industry Award 2020 would apply – applicant contended they would be approximately $500 per fortnight better off under Award than Agreement – United Workers' Union (UWU) not covered by Agreement but represents applicant and requested that its views be considered by Commission – Commission not required to take UWU's views into account under s.226(b)(i) of the Fair Work Act [Mapledoram] – however, Commission considered UWU capable of expressing its members' views, which support termination of Agreement – UWU noted that Agreement provides higher base rate than Award but employees miss out on penalty rates and overtime payments – allowances and annual leave loading not paid under Agreement – Agreement provides less beneficial terms regarding rest breaks, short notice changes to rosters and several other matters – respondent stated that if Agreement terminated, overtime unlikely to be offered due to higher cost and employees who rely on overtime hours worked at base rate of pay would need to consider working elsewhere – each employee covered by Agreement invited to provide their views, and a large number did so – Commission noted: employees who predominantly work day shifts opposed termination of Agreement due to higher rate of pay compared to Award; employees who work weekends or significant overtime without penalty or overtime rates support termination as they are significantly worse off under Agreement than they would be under Award; and a third group of employees prefer sheer amount of hours they are offered, even if it is without penalty or overtime rates, with some saying they worked 120 hours or more per fortnight for a flat rate of pay – s.226(a) requires Commission to be satisfied that it is 'not contrary to public interest' to terminate an enterprise agreement [McDonald's Australia Enterprise Agreement 2013] – Commission noted Agreement made approximately 9 years ago and has significantly less beneficial terms than those in Award – satisfied it is not contrary to public interest to terminate Agreement –Commission acknowledged that employees who predominantly work day shifts may suffer significant decrease in remuneration if respondent reduces hourly rate to Award rate – however, Commission must consider all employees covered by Agreement – Commission noted the many employees who work weekends and overtime without penalty rates are significantly disadvantaged as against Award rates – some employees want to keep working overtime at base rate of pay because of the volume of work they can perform – Commission could not condone this practice – 'Employees requesting to work large numbers of overtime hours without penalty rates…provides the Employer with an unfair advantage over competitors, by significantly undercutting its cost of providing a service at those times…An employee should not have to work 120 hours per fortnight to become entitled to a large…payment where there is no compensation on account of the unsociable or extraordinary hours performed by them' – Commission considered it appropriate to terminate Agreement, taking into account views of persons referred to in s.226(b), including respondent, and their circumstances, and the effect that termination will have on them – Commission must terminate Agreement under s.226 – termination will take effect on 22 August 2022

SecureMetro Employee Collective Agreement 2013

AG2022/880

[2022] FWCA 2437

Hunt C

Brisbane

20 July 2022

 

13

CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT – stand downvaccination policyss.524, 526 Fair Work Act 2009 – application to deal with a dispute involving stand down – employee last worked for respondent on or about 6 July 2021 – absence since that date has been mostly without pay and due mainly to employee's decision to not receive COVID-19 vaccination – period of absence from 11 October 2021 when public health orders preventing employee's attendance at work were lifted was in dispute – applicant is a union, of which employee is a member – respondent submitted employee was not stood down under s.524 of the Fair Work Act – Commission needed to consider whether employee was stood down under s.524, which would determine whether applicant had standing to bring s.526 application – respondent submitted employee refused to comply with lawful and reasonable direction to receive vaccination in order to attend work – on 6 October 2021 employee was told he would need to receive vaccination to return to work – Commission found this was a direction issued by respondent under the contract of employment – direction was reiterated to employee on 3 and 11 November 2021 – on 6 December 2021 respondent's COVID-19 Vaccination Policy came into effect – Policy contained a direction that all employees be vaccinated as a condition of their attendance at work on and after 14 December 2021 unless they provide evidence of medical contraindication – employee was not willing to comply with the requirement to be vaccinated – consequence of decision to not receive vaccine was that employee was not permitted to attend work – Commission found employee was not actually or purportedly stood down by respondent under s.524 – Commission concluded that whether respondent's direction that employee needed to be vaccinated in order to return to work was lawful and reasonable is not necessary to decide in circumstances where applicant's application is not properly before the Commission – employee not covered by s.526(3) – applicant has no standing to apply for orders under s.526 on employee's behalf – application dismissed

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v British Concrete P/L t/a British Concrete

C2022/1360

[2022] FWC 1774

McKinnon C

Sydney

8 July 2022

 

14

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconductemployer policiescasual conversions.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant employed by respondent as a casual Driver – Rear Lift between 8 November 2019 and 30 November 2021 – on 30 November 2021, his employment was terminated for serious misconduct with immediate effect because applicant falsified run sheets and failed to take fatigue breaks in accordance with heavy vehicle fatigue management law and company policy – applicant claimed he was unfairly dismissed because he was not warned about his conduct and the real reason for his dismissal was that the respondent did not want to convert his employment from casual to permanent – prior to dismissal respondent had advised applicant of casual conversion rights – applicant advised he wished to convert his employment but this was resisted by respondent – respondent submitted dismissal was not unfair because it had a zero tolerance policy to breaches of safety requirements – applicant submitted that the relevant laws and policies did not apply to his role and while he made mistakes, the respondent condoned his conduct through instructions given by supervisors and their approval of his run sheets – Commission considered whether dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable – Commission accepted that applicant's run sheets were not always accurate and found it likely his supervisors were aware of the inaccuracy – Commission found applicant's failure to take breaks was not in breach of fatigue management laws because they did not apply to him – Commission found applicant covered by respondent fatigue management policy and obligations imposed under the policy were not met by anyone in relation to the applicant's breaches, but only the applicant was subject to investigation and disciplinary action – Commission found respondent's response to applicant's wish to convert to permanent employment showed it did not support his choice and actively discouraged him – Commission satisfied dismissal was unreasonable and unfair – Commission found applicant's repeated false recording on his run sheets of the time his breaks finished constituted a valid reason for dismissal, but respondent's lack of consistency in applying the policy, lack of consideration given to alternative disciplinary action and lack of action concerning other persons involved in the breaches, supported the applicant's submission that his run sheets were audited in connection with his casual conversion request – Commission satisfied reinstatement not appropriate and considered compensation – Commission found applicant likely to have remained employed by respondent for further 3 months but for the dismissal – compensation sum reduced on account of applicant's subsequent earnings, effort to find a new job and the seriousness of the misconduct leading to his dismissal – Commission ordered compensation in the sum of $21,494.70 gross in favour of the applicant.

Toor v Cleanaway Operations P/L

U2021/11564

[2022] FWC 1900

McKinnon C

Sydney

26 July 2022

 

15

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – contractor or employees.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant worked with technology company in start-up stage – company set up to market fast COVID tracking technology – prior to commencement a series of verbal and written proposals were exchanged – written proposal agreed in principle in December 2020 – proposed arrangement never formalised – business did not succeed – applicant's services terminated in March 2022 – applicant sought an unfair dismissal remedy – respondent raised jurisdictional objection that applicant was not an employee and was an independent contractor – consideration whether a contractual relationship existed – found agreement in principle formed a contract as both parties acted in accordance with that in principle agreement for 16 months without challenge or being finalised into a formal contract (Jago v Coastalwatch P/L) – held contact was simple but it contained sufficient detail concerning what was expected of applicant and what remuneration would be attached – necessary to consider whether contract was one of employment – Personnel Contracting and Jamsek approaches applied – observed unlike in Personnel Contracting and Jamsek the contract between parties in this matter was not comprehensive – examination of performance of contract required – level of control considered – found while applicant had a level of autonomy in day to day matters he was subject to CEO's direction and intervention – observed applicant's duties varied from proposed agreement in course of work, suggesting respondent had greater control over applicant's work – whether applicant working in his own business or putative employer's business – found applicant was not operating his own business and that he was not able to generate goodwill or saleable assets personally – mode of remuneration considered – applicant primarily remunerated via payments akin to commission but if certain targets not met there was no entitlement to payment of any kind – found this modestly pointed to employment relationship – provision of equipment not determinative one way or the other in this matter – found applicant was obligated to work for respondent in return for agreed remuneration – in principle agreement did not cover hours of work and provision for holidays – observed this was slightly in favour of a principal-contractor relationship but found this was not sufficiently telling one way or another – that income tax was not deduced from payments to applicant not considered determinative one way or the other – applicant had no right to delegate work, suggesting an employment relationship – found respondent held out applicant to others as part of its business and that applicant had an email address from the respondent's domain – Commission found applicant was an employee of respondent when relationship considered in totality – jurisdictional objection dismissed – matter listed for future programming.

Course v Wavin Technologies P/L

U2022/3632

[2022] FWC 1977

O'Neill C

Melbourne

28 July 2022

Other Fair Work Commission decisions of note

Appeal by Australian Maritime Officers' Union against decision of Binet DP of 4 February 2022 [[2022] FWC 228] Re: Shell Australia FLNG P/L and Anor

ENTERPRISE BARGAINING – bargaining representative – eligibility rulesss.229, 604 Fair Work Act 2009appealFull Bench – appellant sought permission to appeal – at first instance, appellant applied for bargaining orders under s.229 of the Fair Work Act to compel employer to recognise it as a bargaining representative in the context of negotiations with Australian Workers' Union for a proposed enterprise agreement – appellant asserted that it had a member who will be covered by the proposed agreement – permission to appeal granted – under s.176(3) an employee organisation cannot be a bargaining representative unless it is entitled to represent the industrial interests of the employee in relation to the work that will be performed under the agreement – Fair Work Act does not expressly define when an employee organisation is entitled to represent the industrial interests of employees – High Court has held that the entitlement only arises when the employee organisation's eligibility rules permit it to enrol the employee as a member [Regional Air Express Holdings Limited] – principles applicable to interpretation of union eligibility rules are 'well settled' and were summarised in Resmed Limited – in considering Commission's approach to interpreting the rules at first instance, Full Bench found that 'While the dictionary is a useful tool in the process of construction, it is not the only source of meaning and can fail to capture all the shades of meaning in a term' [Sydney Local Health Network] – 'correct approach is to construe the words in the context in which they appear and in the context of the rules as a whole, including their history. When considering the ordinary meaning of the words used, that meaning can be informed but not replaced by the definitions contained in various dictionaries' – eligibility rules provided that members of the 'Mercantile Marine' were eligible to be members of the appellant union – while Full Bench identified an error in the first instance decision, it was not persuaded on rehearing that appellant successfully established that the individual concerned was a member of the Mercantile Marine for the purposes of the eligibility rule – Full Bench identified another error but was not persuaded on rehearing that appellant's position with respect to the construction of the eligibility rule was correct – appeal upheld – first instance decision quashed – on rehearing, appellant's originating application dismissed

C2022/1353

[2022] FWCFB 120

Millhouse DP
Young DP
Mirabella C

Melbourne

5 July 2022

Jovcic and Anor v Coopers Brewery Limited

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – incapacityinherent requirementsvaccination policys.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application to deal with unfair dismissal – no vaccine public health orders in place – applicants dismissed for failure to comply with vaccination policy – applicants submitted direction to comply with policy unreasonable – applicants contended that Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) advice that vaccination reduced transmission of virus relied upon in implementing policy was wrong – applicants relied on statement of Dr Petrovsky – applicants also contended that policy was unreasonable because of religious objections to vaccination – applicants submitted they should be granted an exemption from being vaccinated – applicants submitted they should have been redeployed to work in part of company away from other staff – respondent contended applicants failed to follow lawful and reasonable direction to comply with policy – breach of employment contacts – respondent submitted policy consistent with ATAGI and government advice – applicants met with respondent on 7 December 2021 to discuss policy – applicants provided letter from the bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Australia setting out moral concerns with vaccination – policy was introduced 23 December 2021 – respondent submitted it complied with consultation process under Coopers Brewery Limited Enterprise Agreement 2018 to implement policy – respondent requested proof of vaccination status from applicants – applicants requested exemption from policy on religious grounds – respondent submitted applicants' requests for exemptions on religious grounds were considered and refused – applicants were suspended from accessing worksite for failing to comply with policy – respondent submitted company reviewed applicants' personal circumstances – found no alternative work opportunities for applicants – respondent terminated applicants for being unable to perform the inherent requirements of their roles and because of their failure to follow a lawful and reasonable direction of the company to comply with its policy – respondent submitted evidence of Dr Petrovsky that conflicted with ATAGI advice was irrelevant as it did not affect whether respondent had acted reasonably in relying on ATAGI advice – Commission not persuaded by evidence from Dr Petrovsky that ATAGI advice was wrong – Commission found applicants refusal to receive vaccination was motivated by religious beliefs – Commission found direction given to applicants was lawful and reasonable – valid reason for the applicants' dismissals because they failed to comply with the direction – valid reason for dismissal as applicants were no longer able to perform the inherent requirement of their jobs – dismissals not unfair – applications dismissed.

U2022/1663 and Anor

[2022] FWC 1931

Colman DP

Melbourne

22 July 2022

Zelesco v Australian Postal Corporation

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – incapacityinherent requirementsopportunity to responds.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – unfair dismissal application – applicant worked as a Mail Officer at the respondent's Dandenong Letter Centre – she was in that role since 28 November 2011 – on 18 February 2019 the applicant was suspended due to a potentially violent incident in the workplace – an internal interview between the respondent and the applicant on 20 March 2019 recommended that the applicant be dismissed from her employment – the respondent referred the applicant for a psychiatric assessment which recommended she be placed on sick leave until she underwent a neuropsychological and cognitive assessment – applicant remained suspended with pay until 9 June 2019 – then until 5 September 2019 utilised annual leave and sick leave – from then applicant was on unpaid sick leave – after an assessment on 20 August 2019, a neuropsychologist issued a report stating the applicant could return to work with 'the one restriction of being able to focus on doing one job at a time. No other restrictions are required. This restriction is permanent.' – the respondent was unable to accommodate those requirements and the applicant was informed in a meeting on 13 March 2020 – the respondent advised the applicant, orally and in writing, that the Australia Post Enterprise Agreement 2017 stated that a person can be medically retired if they are continuously absent from work for more than 78 weeks – on 19 March 2021 the respondent wrote to the applicant informing her of their intention to medically retire her subject to any additional information provided – on 20 April the respondent sent a follow up letter inviting the applicant to provide any relevant additional medical information – on 28 April 2021 the applicant's GP stated she was fit for normal work – further report from the neuropsychologist stated she could return to work with no restrictions, but her 'personality or psychological issues' be further assessed – after the applicant sent a series of emails and text messages to employees of the respondent, and disclosed that she had previously brought a knife to work, a consultant psychiatrist recommended that she was unfit to return to work and should be medically retired – on 1 September 2021 the respondent informed the applicant that she would be medically retired on 15 September 2021 – Commission found that, given the medical evidence, the respondent had a valid reason for dismissal – Commission determined that the applicant was not properly notified of the valid reason – notification in the dismissal letter and an invitation to appeal was not sufficient – Commission found that the applicant was not given an opportunity to respond to reasons related to capacity or conduct – the 14 day period between notification and the dismissal taking effect was not sufficient – respondent not providing opportunity to responded to capacity reasons not considered harsh in this case [FMG Personnel Services] – dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable – application dismissed.

U2021/11105

[2022] FWC 2001

Millhouse DP

Melbourne

28 July 2022

Nightingale v Woolworths Group Limited t/a Woolworth Group

CASE PROCEDURES – representationunfair dismissalvaccination policyss.394, 596 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant made unfair dismissal application, representing himself – respondent sought permission to be represented by a lawyer under s.596 of the Fair Work Act – respondent has implemented a policy across its workforce requiring its employees to provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19 – applicant challenges lawfulness of the policy and asks Commission to make findings that would have significant legal consequences for respondent – respondent argued that while it engaged employees with human resources, industrial relations and legal experience, it was unable to effectively represent itself with the resources it had available because its inhouse staff did not have experience in conducting contested hearings in the Commission and there were several proceedings on foot in relation to COVID-19 vaccination-related terminations effected by respondent – respondent also argued that because MinterEllison has been advising respondent on general matters relating to the pandemic, it was closely familiar with material relevant to this matter and it would be unfair not to allow respondent to be represented by MinterEllison – Commission found neither submission particularly compelling and acknowledged applicant's counter-argument that respondent would have needed a vast team that was available and knowledgeable in the legality of their vaccination policy and would be prepared for the consequences of implementing the policy including the possibility of unfair dismissal action – respondent argued that the issues involved are considerably complex and will require consideration of a continually evolving body of case law in the Commission and other jurisdictions – Commission satisfied there were greater prospects of the case being run more efficiently if permission was granted – Commission satisfied s.596(2)(a) is enlivened and that Commission should exercise discretion to grant permission – permission granted

U2022/3901

[2022] FWC 1733

Easton DP

Sydney

5 July 2022

Southwell and Anor v New Horizons Enterprises Ltd

CASE PROCEDURES – representationunfair dismissalvaccinationss.394, 596 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicants made separate unfair dismissal applications against respondent – applicants worked in disability services and in 2021 their work was covered by government public health orders that required them to be vaccinated against COVID-19 – neither are vaccinated – applicants are both represented by a person who 'insists he is neither a lawyer nor a paid agent' and who represents a number of unvaccinated applicants in Commission proceedings – respondent sought permission to be represented by a lawyer under s.596 of the Fair Work Act – applicants did not file written submissions in relation to respondent's request – materials filed on behalf of applicants are hundreds of pages in length and contain various assertions about the lawfulness of COVID-19 vaccinations, the application of the Constitution, and 'estoppel by silence' – respondent argued that because applicants are challenging legality of public health orders, Commission should find there are complex legal issues to be determined and having lawyers would assist the Commission to efficiently address and resolve these issues – Commission noted general principles which can be drawn from earlier Commission and Federal Court decisions – default position is that each party appears on their own behalf [Warrell v Walton] – there is a 2-step process: first, considering whether one or more criteria in s.596(2) is satisfied and second, considering whether Commission's discretion should be exercised in favour of the party seeking permission in the circumstances [Wellparks Holdings P/L; Grabovsky] – a grant of permission is based on a presumption that the legal representative will conduct themselves with probity, candour and honesty [Fluor Construction Services P/L citing Oram] – power to grant permission does not include any power to select who the legal representative will be [Grabovsky citing McAuliffe and Fitzgerald] – in determining whether granting permission will enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently under s.596(2)(a), Commission does not have to find that the matter is actually complex or is more complex than other matters [Toby Artery] – Commission must give reasons for granting permission [Warrell v Walton] – decision to grant permission can be reviewed or revoked under s.603 [Oratis] – Commission accepted that the applicants raise questions of law with potentially significant consequences – Commission satisfied that there were greater prospects of the case being run more efficiently and focused on the relevant issues if permission was granted and recognised presumption that legal representatives will conduct themselves with probity, candour and honesty – Commission satisfied that s.596(2)(a) was enlivened and that discretion should be exercised – permission granted

U2022/2454 and Anor

[2022] FWC 1740

Easton DP

Sydney

6 July 2022

Subscription Options

You can subscribe to a range of updates about decisions, award modernisation, the annual wage review, events and engagement and other Fair Work Commission work and activities on the Fair Work Commission’s website. These include:

Websites of Interest

Attorney-General’s Department - www.ag.gov.au/industrial-relations - provides general information about the Department and its Ministers, including their media releases.

AUSTLII - www.austlii.edu.au/ - a legal site including legislation, treaties and decisions of courts and tribunals.

Australian Building and Construction Commission www.abcc.gov.au/ - regulates workplace relations laws in the building and construction industry through education, advice and compliance activities.

Australian Government - enables search of all federal government websites - www.australia.gov.au/.

Federal Register of Legislation - www.legislation.gov.au/ - legislative repository containing Commonwealth primary legislation as well as other ancillary documents and information, and the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (formerly ComLaw).

Fair Work Act 2009 - www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2009A00028.

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 - www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A03679.

Fair Work Commission - www.fwc.gov.au/ - includes hearing lists, rules, forms, major decisions, termination of employment information and student information.

Fair Work Ombudsman - www.fairwork.gov.au/ - provides information and advice to help you understand your workplace rights and responsibilities (including pay and conditions) in the national workplace relations system.

Federal Circuit Court of Australia - www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au/.

Federal Court of Australia - www.fedcourt.gov.au/.

High Court of Australia - www.hcourt.gov.au/.

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales - www.irc.justice.nsw.gov.au/.

Industrial Relations Victoria - www.vic.gov.au/industrial-relations-victoria.

International Labour Organization - www.ilo.org/global/lang--en/index.htm - provides technical assistance primarily in the fields of vocational training and vocational rehabilitation, employment policy, labour administration, labour law and industrial relations, working conditions, management development, co-operatives, social security, labour statistics and occupational health and safety.

Queensland Industrial Relations Commission - www.qirc.qld.gov.au/index.htm.

South Australian Employment Tribunal - www.saet.sa.gov.au/.

Tasmanian Industrial Commission - www.tic.tas.gov.au/.

Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission - www.wairc.wa.gov.au/.

Workplace Relations Act 1996 - www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2009C00075

Fair Work Commission Addresses

 

Australian Capital Territory
Level 3, 14 Moore Street
Canberra 2600
GPO Box 539
Canberra City 2601
Tel: 1300 799 675
Fax: (02) 6247 9774
Email: canberra@fwc.gov.au

New South Wales

Sydney

Level 10, Terrace Tower
80 William Street
East Sydney 2011
Tel: 1300 799 675
Fax: (02) 9380 6990
Email: sydney@fwc.gov.au



Newcastle

Level 3, 237 Wharf Road,
Newcastle, 2300
PO Box 805,
Newcastle, 2300

 

 

 

Northern Territory
10th Floor, Northern Territory House
22 Mitchell Street
Darwin 0800
GPO Box 969
Darwin 0801
Tel: 1300 799 675
Fax: (08) 8936 2820
Email: darwin@fwc.gov.au

Queensland
Level 14, Central Plaza Two
66 Eagle Street
Brisbane 4000
GPO Box 5713
Brisbane 4001
Tel: 1300 799 675
Fax: (07) 3000 0388
Email: brisbane@fwc.gov.au

South Australia
Level 6, Riverside Centre
North Terrace
Adelaide 5000
PO Box 8072
Station Arcade 5000
Tel: 1300 799 675
Fax: (08) 8308 9864
Email: adelaide@fwc.gov.au

 

 

 

Tasmania
1st Floor, Commonwealth Law Courts
39-41 Davey Street
Hobart 7000
GPO Box 1232
Hobart 7001
Tel: 1300 799 675
Fax: (03) 6214 0202
Email: hobart@fwc.gov.au

Victoria
Level 4, 11 Exhibition Street
Melbourne 3000
PO Box 1994
Melbourne 3001
Tel: 1300 799 675
Fax: (03) 9655 0401
Email: melbourne@fwc.gov.au

Western Australia
Floor 16,
111 St Georges Terrace
Perth 6000
GPO Box X2206
Perth 6001
Tel: 1300 799 675
Fax: (08) 9481 0904
Email: perth@fwc.gov.au

 

Out of hours applications

For urgent industrial action applications outside business hours, please refer to our Commission offices page for emergency contact details.

The address of the Fair Work Commission home page is: www.fwc.gov.au/
 

The FWC Bulletin is a monthly publication that includes information on the following topics:

For inquiries regarding publication of the FWC Bulletin please contact the Fair Work Commission by email: subscriptions@fwc.gov.au.

© Commonwealth of Australia 2022