Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd v United Voice [2018] FCAFC 139

Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd v United Voice [2018] FCAFC 139

The Deputy President did not commit jurisdictional error because the coverage of the employees who participated in making the Agreement was not an irrelevant consideration. Under s 186(2)(a), read with ss 188(b), 182(1) and 172(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission had to consider whether a single-enterprise non-greenfields agreement had been made by employees who would be covered by it. The Deputy President therefore did not misunderstand the statutory task, and the application for judicial review had to be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Seeking Orders in the Nature of Certiorari and Mandamus in Relation to a Fair Work Commission Decision Dismissing an Application for Approval of an Enterprise Agreement / Federal Court of Australia Full Court Judgment on the Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['fair Work Act 2009 (cth) Pt 2 4' 'approval of Single Enterprise Non Greenfields Agreements' 'genuine Agreement Under S 186(2)(a)' 'coverage of Employees Under Enterprise Agreements' 'jurisdictional Error' 'judicial Review of Fair Work Commission Decisions']
['industrial Law' 'employment and Industrial Relations' 'administrative Law'] ['fair Work Act 2009 (cth) Pt 2 4' 'approval of Single Enterprise Non Greenfields Agreements' 'genuine Agreement Under S 186(2)(a)' 'coverage of Employees Under Enterprise Agreements' 'jurisdictional Error' 'judicial Review of Fair Work Commission Decisions']

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 Judicial Review Seeking Orders in the Nature of Certiorari and Mandamus in Relation to a Fair Work Commission Decision Dismissing an Application for Approval of an Enterprise Agreement / Federal Court of Australia Full Court Judgment on the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission committed jurisdictional error by taking into account whether the employees who voted on the Agreement were covered by it when deciding whether the Agreement had been genuinely agreed to under s 186(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether the coverage requirement in s 172(2)(a) was relevant at the approval stage under ss 186-192 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).' 'Whether the Deputy President misconstrued s 186(2)(a) or erred in determining that the four employees were not covered by the Agreement.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy President did not commit jurisdictional error because the coverage of the employees who participated in making the Agreement was not an irrelevant consideration. Under s 186(2)(a), read with ss 188(b), 182(1) and 172(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission had to consider whether a single-enterprise non-greenfields agreement had been made by employees who would be covered by it. The Deputy President therefore did not misunderstand the statutory task, and the application for judicial review had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' 'No order for costs is sought and no such order should be made.']