[2016] FWCFB 4675
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.604—Appeal of decision

Nick Tsiftelidis
v
Crown Melbourne Limited
(C2016/3380)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI
DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON
COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC

BRISBANE, 25 JULY 2016

Appeal against decision [[2016] FWC 1689] and Order PR578345 of Commissioner Cribb at Melbourne on 24 March 2016 in matter number U2015/5662.

[1] Crown Melbourne Limited (Respondent) had employed Mr Nick Tsiftelidis (Appellant) for approximately eight and a half years until 12 May 2015 when it dismissed him on redundancy grounds. In his employment with the Respondent, the Appellant was covered by the Crown Melbourne Enterprise Agreement 2013 (Agreement). On 24 March 2016 Commissioner Cribb issued a decision 1 (Decision) which concluded that the Appellant’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy within the meaning of s.389 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)2 (FW Act) and dismissed the Appellant’s application for a remedy for an unfair dismissal by order (Order).3

[2] The Appellant sought permission to appeal the Commissioner’s Decision and Order. The issue of permission to appeal was heard by a Full Bench of the Commission and on 2 June 2016 that Full Bench issued a decision which granted permission to appeal. 4 With permission to appeal having been granted, the determination of the merits of the appeal is the matter before us.

The Hearing

[3] At the hearing on 12 July 2016, the Appellant was self-represented and did not object 5 to permission to appear being granted to Mr M. Tamvakologos on behalf of the Respondent. In light of this, and having regard to s.596 of the FW Act and the relevant authorities, permission to appear was granted.

[4] While the Appellant did not oppose permission to appear being granted to Mr Tamvakologos, he expressed concern 6 about the presence and involvement of Mr M. Brennan, the solicitor assisting Mr Tamvakologos. The Appellant elaborated to say that he was concerned that Mr Brennan has had a professional relationship and/or done professional work with Commissioner Cirkovic in the past.7 Mr Tamvakologos offered to have Mr Brennan excuse himself from the hearing room to allay any concerns.8 The Appellant did not respond to this offer.

[5] The Appellant was informed that Mr Brennan was Commissioner Cirkovic’s associate for a short period. 9 The Appellant asked us whether we thought that this constituted a conflict of interest.10 We asked the Appellant whether he wished to make an application outlining what he perceived to be a conflict of interest in this case.11 The Appellant did not make such an application before us and instead indicated that he will take the matter to the Federal Court.12 The Appellant said that he was not withdrawing his appeal13 and proceeded to leave the hearing room.

[6] After the Appellant left the hearing room, Mr Tamvakologos confirmed that Commissioner Cirkovic was not involved in this matter while Mr Brennan was her associate. Mr Tamvakologos said that in light of this, and on the basis that Mr Brennan no longer has any on-going role at the Commission, there is no reasonable apprehension of bias, real or perceived. 14 We note that Vice President Catanzariti and Commissioner Cirkovic were both members of the Full Bench that granted permission to appeal to the Appellant.15 To ensure that the Appellant was not deprived of natural justice16 by being absent from the hearing room, Mr Tamvakologos said that the Respondent was content for us to rely on the written material which included the witness statements of Ms Gleeson (exhibit A) and Ms Szalay (exhibit B), the Respondent’s submissions (exhibit C) and the Appellant’s submissions (exhibit 1).17

[7] On the basis that the Appellant did not withdraw his appeal or make an application outlining what he perceived to be a conflict of interest or make any other application, we have proceeded to hear the appeal based on the written submissions filed by both parties and our findings are provided below.

The Appeal

[8] Clauses 24 and 33 of the Agreement, which prescribe consultation obligations and are enlivened in certain circumstances, were at the centre of the appeal. The appeal concerned whether the Respondent had complied with its consultation obligations in relation to the dismissal of the Appellant. At first instance, the Commissioner found that clause 24 of the Agreement, which deals with consultation with regards to major changes in operations, had no application in the circumstances of the Appellant’s dismissal because clause 33 of the Agreement deals with the Respondent’s consultation obligations in situations of individual redundancies. The Commissioner said:

[9] At the heart of the appeal is whether clause 24 and 33 of the Agreement were construed and applied correctly by the Commissioner.

Appellant’s Submissions

[10] The Appellant submitted that there were significant errors with regards to clause 24 and 33 of the Agreement throughout the Decision. The Appellant contended 19 that the Commissioner’s failure to consider the following evidence contributed to these alleged errors:

[11] The Appellant referred to the Respondent’s contention that the employment relationship of trust and confidence had broken down and submitted that the Commissioner should have realised that:

[12] The Appellant posited that the Commissioner did not consider whether his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and that the following points were also not considered:

[13] The Appellant also contended that the evidence does not support the conclusion that the Appellant’s position was redundant due to changes in the operation requirements of the Respondent’s workplace. The Appellant posited that in her witness statement, Ms Momesso revealed that the work required by the Respondent was not the same across the three hotels, contrary to the evidence of Mr Schultz and Ms Stevens. 25

[14] The Appellant submitted that the Commissioner was more interested in the Appellant’s effort to find new employment than any effort on behalf of the Respondent to prove that there was a genuine redundancy. 26 The Appellant also submitted that the Commissioner should have drawn further conclusions and suspicions from the evidence that was provided by the Respondent regarding consultation with the relevant union. To support this submission, the Appellant posited that the weight of the evidence favoured a conclusion that the union had no idea of the discussions that were occurring.27 The Appellant questioned the Commissioner’s finding that redeployment was unreasonable and submitted that he could have been redeployed to the Spa Receptionist role.28

[15] In pages nine to twelve of the Appellant’s written submissions under the heading “other relevant points”, the Appellant submitted that some of the individuals who were involved in the decision to make the Sports Consultant position redundant did not give a witness statement and were not involved with the case at first instance. 29 The Appellant posited that throughout the case the Respondent has argued that it did not need to follow its consultation obligations in clause 24 of the Agreement on the basis that the Appellant’s redundancy was not a major change. The Appellant submitted that this is an inconsistent approach from the Respondent on the basis that the Agreement and FW Act do not consider numerical redundancies.30

[16] In light of the above submissions, the Appellant contended that reinstatement and compensation should be ordered. The Appellant posited that it would be reasonable to reinstate the Appellant on the basis that the Respondent has been inconsistent in its approach to its claim that there was a genuine redundancy and has not followed its consultation obligations. 31

Respondent’s Submissions

[17] The Respondent submitted that clauses 24 and 33 of the Agreement have a different scope and purpose, and that the consultation obligation contained in clause 33 applied in the circumstances of the redundancy of the Appellant’s position, not clause 24. The Respondent submitted that it discharged its consultation obligation contained in clause 33 of the Agreement and met the obligation contained in s.389(1)(b) of the FW Act.

[18] In the alternative, the Respondent submitted that if both clauses 24 and 33 operated, the obligation in clause 33 should prevail. The Respondent contended that the generalia principle has been relied on in the Commission in construing both enterprise agreements and awards. The Respondent contended that the generalia principle is a helpful interpretive aid and leads to the result that only clause 33 of the Agreement applied.

[19] The Respondent also contended that pursuant to s.389(1)(a) of the FW Act, the Respondent no longer required the Appellant’s job to be done by anyone because of changes in operational requirements. Pursuant to s.389(2) of the FW Act, the Respondent posited that it was not reasonable for it to redeploy the Appellant.

[20] In light of these submissions, the Respondent submitted that the appeal should be dismissed.

Consideration

[21] In determining this appeal we have read and considered all of the material filed by the parties including all of the submissions, correspondence and the relevant authorities. These materials indicate that clauses 24 and 33 of the Agreement, and the consultation obligations that they impose on the Respondent, are at the heart of the present dispute. The Appellant contends that the Respondent did not meet its consultation obligations while the Respondent contends that it did. The first part of our consideration deals with the Respondent’s consultation obligations prescribed by clause 33. The second part of our consideration deals with the Respondent’s consultation obligations prescribed by clause 24.

Clause 33

[22] Clause 33 of the Agreement provides specific consultation obligations with regards to redundancies. The clause says:

[23] As seen in the above extract, subsection 3 of clause 33 requires the Respondent to consult with the relevant Union to determine alternatives to redundancy. It follows that if this consultation took place, the Respondent discharged its consultation obligations pursuant to clause 33 of the Agreement.

[24] The Respondent contends 32 that Mr S. Kemppi of United Voice was contacted and that alternatives to the redundancy of the Appellant were discussed33 while the Appellant posits that proper consultation did not occur.34 In a letter from United Voice to the Appellant dated 8 September 2015, United Voice acknowledges that the Respondent contacted Mr Kemppi to consult with the Union regarding changes to the structure of a department and how these changes may impact upon the Appellant’s employment.35 Therefore, United Voice acknowledged that, as the Respondent contends, Mr Kemppi of United Voice was consulted by the Respondent prior to the redundancy of the Appellant.

[25] Having considered the submissions of the parties and in light of United Voice acknowledging the consultation between it and the Respondent, we accept the Respondent’s contention that consultation pursuant to clause 33 occurred. We reject the Appellant’s submission that clause 33 was not complied with as it does not follow the evidence revealed in the letter from United Voice to the Appellant that there was no consultation. We are satisfied that the weight of the evidence indicates that the required consultation occurred between the Respondent and United Voice. As such, we are satisfied that the Respondent complied with its consultation requirements pursuant to clause 33 of the Agreement. In this respect we agree with the findings of the Commissioner:

Clause 24

[26] The next issue before us is whether the Respondent was required to comply with the additional consultation requirements prescribed by clause 24 of the Agreement. Clause 24 of the Agreement relevantly provides:

[27] This extract shows that clause 24 of the Agreement, and the additional consultation requirements prescribed therein, are enlivened only when the Respondent “makes a definite decision to introduce major changes in production, program, organisation, structure or technology in relation to its enterprise.” 37 It follows that to determine whether consultation is required under clause 24, we must first determine whether the Appellant’s redundancy was a “major change” within the meaning of the disputed clause (thereby enlivening the clause). In giving consideration to this issue, we are guided by the most recent High Court authority, Amcor Ltd v. CFMEU.38 In that decision Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ considered the interpretation of an enterprise agreement and said:

[28] Kirby J said:

[29] Callinan J said that there was substance in the observations of Madgwick J in Kucks v CSR Limited Ltd (Kucks). He then said:

[30] In Kucks, following the passage quoted above, Madgwick J went on to say:

[31] In AMIEU v Golden Cockerel Pty Ltd (“Golden Cockerel”) a Full Bench of the Commission considered this and other authorities and said that the resolution of a disputed construction of an agreement will turn on the language of the agreement understood having regard to its context and purpose. 40

[32] Clause 24.2 of the Agreement provides that the purpose of the consultative committee is to consult about issues and matters arising from a “collective nature.” This indicates that a matter is more likely to be a major change if it affects a collective group of employees, rather than being a matter that impacts upon an individual. This indication is supported by the evidence in exhibit A and exhibit B. For example, in exhibit A, Ms Gleeson confirms that clause 24 is enlivened for collective matters only 41 and not for individual redundancies.42 Similarly, in exhibit B, Ms Szalay agrees with Ms Gleeson and says that clause 24 is enlivened only for collective matters.43 The weight of the evidence therefore supports the conclusion that clause 24 of the Agreement, and the additional consultation requirements imposed on the Respondent therein, are not enlivened by cases that are not of a collective nature, such as individual redundancies.

[33] The frequent referral to the plural “employees” rather than “employee” in clause 24 further indicates that the clause captures changes to the Respondent’s workplace that impacts upon a group of employees rather than an individual. We are satisfied that it follows that clause 24 does not capture individual redundancies on the basis that individual redundancies do not constitute a “major change” to the Respondent’s operations that impact upon a collective of employees.

[34] As such, and applying Golden Cockerel, we prefer the Respondent’s submission that the text of the Agreement, read as a whole, leads to the finding that the Appellant’s redundancy did not enliven clause 24 of the Agreement. We reject the argument that the Appellant’s redundancy constituted a “major change” that impacted upon employees as a “collective” pursuant to clause 24. It follows that the argument that the Appellant’s redundancy enlivened clause 24 is to be rejected, and, therefore, the Respondent was not required to comply with the additional consultation obligations prescribed in the clause with regards to the Appellant’s dismissal.

[35] In light of this, we are satisfied that the Respondent was not required to comply with the additional consultation requirements prescribed in clause 24 of the Agreement.

Summary

[36] We are satisfied that the Respondent, having complied with the consultation requirements prescribed in clause 33 of the Agreement, met its consultation obligations in relation to the redundancy of the Appellant.

[37] We are satisfied that there were no appealable errors in the Commissioner’s Decision. The Commissioner correctly found that the Respondent:

[38] It follows that there is no basis upon which for us to quash the Commissioner’s decision and that the appeal must be dismissed.

Conclusion

[39] The Respondent complied with its consultation obligations pursuant to clause 33 of the Agreement.

[40] The Respondent was not required to comply with the additional consultation requirements prescribed in clause 24 of the Agreement on the basis that the clause was not enlivened by the Appellant’s dismissal.

[41] The appeal is dismissed.

Description: Seal of the Fair Work Commission with Vice President Catanzariti's signature

VICE PRESIDENT

Appearances:

The Appellant was self-represented

The Respondent was represented by Mr Tamvakologos from Seyfarth Shaw

Hearing details:

10am
12 July 2016

Melbourne

 1   [2016] FWC 1689.

 2   Ibid at [92].

 3   PR578345.

 4   [2016] FWCFB 3345.

 5   Transcript, PN9.

 6   Transcript, PN 19.

 7   Transcript, PN23.

 8   Transcript, PN30.

 9   Transcript, PN53.

 10   Transcript, PN47.

 11   Transcript, PN51.

 12   Transcript, PN61.

 13   Ibid.

 14   Transcript, PN65.

 15   [2016] FWCFB 3345.

 16   Transcript, PN94.

 17   Transcript, PN116.

 18   [2016] FWC 1689 at [71]-[76].

 19   Appellant’s Submissions, paragraph 6.

 20   Appellant’s Submissions, paragraph 7.

 21   Appellant’s Submissions, paragraph 9.

 22   Appellant’s Submissions, paragraph 10.

 23   Appellant’s Submissions, paragraph 11.

 24   Appellant’s Submissions, paragraph 15.

 25   Appellant’s Submissions, paragraph 17.

 26   Appellant’s Submissions, paragraph 20.

 27   Appellant’s Submissions, paragraph 22.

 28   Appellant’s Submissions, paragraph 23.

 29   Appellant’s Submissions, page 10, point 7.

 30   Appellant’s Submissions, page 11, point 10.

 31   Appellant’s Submissions, page 12, point 13.

 32   Respondents Appeal Book, page 399, paragraph 18.

 33   Respondent’s Appeal Book, page 399, paragraph 23.

 34   Ibid, n 26.

 35   Respondent’s Appeal Book, page 506.

 36   Clause 24.4 of the Agreement.

 37   Ibid.

 38   (2005) 222 CLR 241

 39   (1996) 149 CLR 337

 40   [2014] FWCFB 7447, 41.

 41   Exhibit A, paragraph 19.

 42   Exhibit A, paragraph 23.

 43   Exhibit B, paragraph 4.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code {C}, PR582702>