Australian Sugar Milling Association, Queensland, Union of Employers, Queensland Union of Employers v The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland & Ors [2001] ICQ 71 (2001) 168 QGIG 346

346 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 7 December, 2001 ########################################################################################################################### INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND Industrial Relations Act 1999 – s. 347(1) – application for stay of decision. Australian Sugar Milling Association, Queensland, Union of Employers, Queensland Union of Employers AND The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland; The Electrical Trades Union of Employees of Australia, Queensland Branch; Automotive, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland (No. 1)(No. C81 of 2001) PRESDIENT HALL 28 November 2001 REPORT ON DECISION (as edited) In giving a decision from the Bench on 22 November 2001 the President stated:– “This is a most unusual application. It is apparent that because of the view which the applicants for a stay (the appellants in the appeal) hold of the operation of the decision of the Full Bench in case number B1206 of 1999 in a situation where an engagement is governed by a certified agreement, because of the views which the various applicants/appellants hold of particular certified agreements to which they are parties, and because of the logistical difficulties of calculating in terms of percentages instead of flat amounts, that whether or not a stay is issued this afternoon, no moneys in fact will be paid between now and the hearing of this matter on Wednesday of next week. The stay is not being sought to protect the subject matter of the appeal. In the presence of a decision capable of being understood as allowing an increase in shift allowances to employees and an omission to either stay the decision or pay money, there either has been industrial action or threats of industrial action by disaffected employees. Those matters are being dealt with by Commissioner Swan. As I understand it, the real effect of the stay would not be to achieve purpose normally achieved by a stay, but to confer a forensic advantage on the applicants/appellants in the proceedings in the Commission. I am not disposed to grant a stay for that purpose. It may be that factual matters will dramatically change between now and Wednesday. If they do there is no reason why an application for a further stay may not be pressed on the Wednesday or indeed on or any of the days between now and next Wednesday. In all circumstances I propose to dismiss the application for the stay and I do.”. -- 1 of 2 -- 7 December, 2001 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 347 Dated this twenty-eighth day of November, 2001. By the Court, [L.S.] E. EWALD, Industrial Registrar. Released: 28 November 2001 Appearances:– Mr J. Murdoch SC instructed by Minter Ellison solicitors, for the appellant. Mr A. Herbert (directly instructed), with him Mr J. Sharpe, on behalf of the The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland. Mr K. Inglis for the The Electrical Trades Union of Employees of Australia, Queensland Branch. Mr B. Burton for the Automotive, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland. -- 2 of 2 --