Peter Jones v Communications, Electrical, Electronics, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2005] NSWIRComm 144

Peter Jones v Communications, Electrical, Electronics, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2005] NSWIRComm 144

There is no constitutional inconsistency between the provisions of s 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) and the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) or the rules of the CEPU; the WR Act does not express or imply an intention to cover the field of unfair contracts of employment or exclude the operation of general State laws such as s 106; accordingly, the Commission retains jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim and the CEPU’s motion to dismiss is refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Motion in Proceeding Under S 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996 (nsw) / Interlocutory Judgment—motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Motion dismissed; the Commission retains jurisdiction to hear the s 106 IR Act claim.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contracts' 'constitutional Inconsistency' 'jurisdiction of State Tribunals']
['industrial Law' 'constitutional Law'] ['unfair Contracts' 'constitutional Inconsistency' 'jurisdiction of State Tribunals']

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

Interlocutory Motion in Proceeding Under S 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996 (nsw) / Interlocutory Judgment—motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is constitutional inconsistency between federal laws governing federally registered organisations and s 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW)' 'Whether the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW has jurisdiction to determine unfair contract claims against a federally registered organisation' "Whether the organisation's rules constitute a law of the Commonwealth for s 109 Constitution purposes" "Whether the 'cover the field' or direct inconsistency tests are satisfied"]

Ratio Decidendi

There is no constitutional inconsistency between the provisions of s 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) and the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) or the rules of the CEPU; the WR Act does not express or imply an intention to cover the field of unfair contracts of employment or exclude the operation of general State laws such as s 106; accordingly, the Commission retains jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s claim and the CEPU’s motion to dismiss is refused.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; the Commission retains jurisdiction to hear the s 106 IR Act claim.

Orders

  • ['The motion is dismissed.' "The applicant on the motion (CEPU) is to pay Mr Jones' costs of the motion."]