Automotive, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland v Cairns Post Pty Ltd, Gold Coast Publications Pty Ltd and North Queensland Newspaper Company [2002] ICQ 13 (2002) 169 QGIG 573

19 April, 2002 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 573 ########################################################################################################################### INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND Industrial Relations Act 1999 – s. 282 – case stated to Court Automotive, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland AND Cairns Post Pty Ltd, Gold Coast Publications Pty Ltd and North Queensland Newspaper Company (No. D62 of 2002) PRESIDENT HALL 8 April 2002 REPORT ON DECISION (as edited) In giving his decision from the Bench on 25 March 2002, the President stated:– “It seems to me that in order to determine this matter it is not necessary to decide whether the Industrial Relations Act 1999 vests the Commission with power to vary a Certified Agreement entered into under the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and continued in effect by the operation of the Workplace Relations Act 1997 and the Industrial Relations Act 1999. It is sufficient to dispose of the matter currently before the Court to go to the order of the Full Bench dealing with the matter of casual loadings which was published on 6 April 2001. The ruling declares that awards making provision for casual employees are to be amended. It seems to me clear that Industrial Agreements and Certified Agreements were to be excluded from the operation of the order. Understandably, Mr Moorhead, for the Union party, takes me to the Decision of the Commission in the Casual Loading case, which was published -- 1 of 2 -- 574 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 19 April, 2002 on 3 April 2001. On a fair construction of that Decision it seems to me to contain nothing which would justify one giving the terms of the Order of 6 April, 2001 other than their normal meaning. It is clear from the reasoning that any general ruling which issued was not to amend the terms of Certified Agreements. There was a discussion about the impact the general ruling might have on the re-negotiation of Certified Agreements. Whether the Full Bench’s view about the limited role of the general ruling in the negotiation of Certified Agreements will prove to be correct is another matter. I am satisfied that the general ruling of 6 April 2001 did not amend, vary or in any way derogate from the Certified Agreement of 1996.”. Dated 8 April 2002. By the Court, [L.S.] E. EWALD, Industrial Registrar. Appearances:– Mr E. Moorhead for the Automotive, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland. Mr J. Murdoch SC instructed by Minter Ellison for the respondents. -- 2 of 2 --