Sensis Pty Ltd v Members of the Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission [2005] FCAFC 74

Sensis Pty Ltd v Members of the Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission [2005] FCAFC 74

The application failed because s 170NA(1), properly construed in its Part VIB context, conferred on the AIRC conciliation powers including the adapted direction-making powers in s 111(1)(d) and (t) in relation to issues arising in negotiations for certified agreements. The disagreement about whether the employee negotiating team could have CPSU assistance was a procedural issue ancillary to the Part VIB negotiations and was within the Commission's facilitative jurisdiction. A direction providing for employee-chosen CPSU assistance would not force Sensis to make a union agreement under s 170LJ or prevent it from pursuing a direct employee agreement under s 170LK. Sensis therefore did not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Prerogative Relief (certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus) in Relation to a Decision of the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission / Final Hearing on Remittal From the High Court of Australia Pursuant to S 44 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth)
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed.
Legal Topics
['australian Industrial Relations Commission Conciliation Powers' 'certified Agreements Under Part VIB of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'union Representation in Negotiations' 'prerogative Relief' 'statutory Construction of S 170 Na']
['industrial Law' 'administrative Law'] ['australian Industrial Relations Commission Conciliation Powers' 'certified Agreements Under Part VIB of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)' 'union Representation in Negotiations' 'prerogative Relief' 'statutory Construction of S 170 Na']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Prerogative Relief (certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus) in Relation to a Decision of the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission / Final Hearing on Remittal From the High Court of Australia Pursuant to S 44 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commission has power to issue directions when exercising conciliation functions pursuant to Part VIB of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' 'What construction should be given to the phrase "a matter arising under this Part" in s 170NA(1).' 'Whether the Commission had power in the circumstances to direct or facilitate union representation for employees in negotiations for a certified agreement.' 'Whether the proposed CPSU direction was within jurisdiction or inconsistent with the statutory scheme permitting an employer to seek an agreement directly with employees under s 170LK.' 'Whether Sensis had made out a case for prerogative relief against the Full Bench decision.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because s 170NA(1), properly construed in its Part VIB context, conferred on the AIRC conciliation powers including the adapted direction-making powers in s 111(1)(d) and (t) in relation to issues arising in negotiations for certified agreements. The disagreement about whether the employee negotiating team could have CPSU assistance was a procedural issue ancillary to the Part VIB negotiations and was within the Commission's facilitative jurisdiction. A direction providing for employee-chosen CPSU assistance would not force Sensis to make a union agreement under s 170LJ or prevent it from pursuing a direct employee agreement under s 170LK. Sensis therefore did not...

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The proceeding be dismissed.']