Australasian Meat Industry Union of Employees (Queensland Branch) v Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia (Queensland Division) Union of Employers [1993] QIRC 376 (1993) 144 QGIG 441

440 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT lNDUST R lA L GAZETTE [22 October, 1993 22 October, I 993 ] QUEE NS LAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 44 1 ############ ## #### #### #### #### #################### ## Q UEE NSLAND I ND USTRIAL RELATIONS COM M ISSI ON Industrial Relations Act 19 90 s. 63 - app lic ati on for refe re nce to Australian Ind us tri al Rela tions Commission Australasi an Meat Industry Union of Employees (Qu eens l and Branch) AND Meat and Al lied Trades Federation of A ustrali a (Queensland D iv ision) Uni on of Employers (No. 8526 of 7993) CH IEF IN D USTR IAL COMM ISSIONER HA LL 8 October 1993 Refe rence to Aust ra li an Commission - Considerat ion of Factors Re l eva nt to discretion - A pp li ca ti on Refused - Co nference w ith Austra lian Commission D irection . The Austral asi an Meat Industry Union of Em ploy ees (Queens land Branch) 's counterpart federal body i s current ly pursuing an application io r a federal award sett ing the te rms and condi tions of employment at the Metropo lit an Regional Abattoir, na mely Case No. 20062 oi 1990. The empl oying authority at the Metropolitan Reg ional Abattoir opposes the m ak ing of a fe dera l awa rd. Deputy Pres ident Ma her has heard the evidence and t he submissions in an application under s. 11 l( l)(g)(ii iJ of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Commonwealth} and has reserved his decision. In Case No . B446 of 1993 the Metropoli tan Regional Abattoir Boa rd, by the reg istered emp loyer organi sation named Meat and Allied Tr ades Federation of Austra lia (Q uee nsland Div ision) Union of Emp lo yers (MATFA) see ks a State award selling t he terms and conditions of employmen t at the Met ro po li tan Reg ional Abattoir. The Australas i an Meat Industry Union of Emp l oyees (Queensland Branc h) (AMIEU) opposes the m ak ing of a state award. Comm issi oner Dempsey has reject ed a subm is sion that he should deal with th e question whether he should di smiss or refrain from furt he r hea ring the ma tte r as a threshol d i ss u e, and has decided to determine al l issues at the one time. But for an adj ou rn m en t made n ece ssary by this applicati on fi na l subm iss ions w ould ha ve been h eard on 1 Oc tober 1993. By an app li cation l odged with the Industrial Reg istrar on 28 Sep tember 1993, the AMIEU seek re fere nce of Cas e No . 8446 of 1993 to a memb er of the Auwa lian Industrial Re lat ions Com mi ss ion. Such applications are no rmally made at the o uts et and determined by consent and informally. Here, because the appli ca tion was made at the d ea th, was opposed and was formally made I took the unusual step of l is ti ng it ior formal hearing at 4.00 p.m. on 30 September 1993. M r M ieklej ohn for the AMIEU subm its that Case N o. 844 6 should be referred because:- (a) this Commission h as trad itionally exercised it's discretion to decline j uri sdiction (s. 68(1)(b)) on different principl es 10 tho se appli ed by the Australian Commission in exercising the comparab le di scre ti on (s. 11 1(1)(g)( iii )}, (b) there is a li ne of A ustralian au thority for the proposition that federal regu lation of t he meat industry is in t he public interest an d (c) a member of the Australi an Commi ss ion is better placed to bring a fresh mind to the matters at (a) and (b) . Mr M i ek lejohn, I has ten to ad d, makes no criticism of Commi ss ioner Demps ey and welcomes as an outcome Commissioner Dem psey hearing the ma tter in his capaci ty as a member of the Australi an Commission . Th e argumen t put is that the fres h commencemen t wh ich would flow from the change of capaci ty wou ld i nv igorate cons iderat i on of the ma tters at (a) and (b ). If thi s application had been ma de when t he proceedin gs in the Australi an Commi ss ion and in this Commi ss ion were in their infancy, I should have b een favourab ly disposed to grant it. The matters involve common q uestions of law, policy and fac t. The opportunity for one Commissioner (of whatever tribu na l) to hear such matters al the same ti me has now evaporat ed. I do not accept that properly construed s. 63 authori ses re ference to a member of this Commission in the memb er's capacity as a member of the Aust ral ian Commission. Reference wou ld involve a member of t he Austral i an Commission revisiting i ssues al ready dealt wit h before Comm issi oner Dem psey. [I in te rpol ate th at while the award application is re cent, it ar ises ou t of drawn out concili at i on proc eed i ngs before Commissioner De mp sey go ing back some month s.] . For myself I d oubt that t he pri nciples properly ap plicable in this Commission differ from those applied in the Aust ral i an Comm iss i on . If I be wrong in that, a member of th e Aust ral i an Commission acq uiri ng all ocation of Case No. B446 of 1993 would be requi red to give effect to the Queensland pri nc ip le s. More importantly, those issues are all i ssues for the Commissioner to whom that matter is alloc at ed, and I qui te fail to understand how that Commissioner's primary appointment could so sharpen t he Commi ssioner's in te llectual and forens ic sk ills as to impact in anyway on the eval uatio n of the i ssues. W it h res pect to Mr M ieklejohn th e arg um en t seems to me to be little more than a persuasively p ul submi ssion b as ed on mere b re akfast j urisprudence. The expense and delay that would fl ow from su ccess of the applic at ion cannot be supported by a benefi t of such an el us ive character. In the prem ises, I dismi ss t he appli ca tio n. The subm i ss ions of Mr Mieklejohn have, however, sati sfied me that ii w ou ld be beneficial i f, after t he close of evidence and su bm i ss ions in Case No. B446 of 1993, Commi ss ioner Dempsey and Deputy Pre sident Maher were to con fer wi th a view to co- o rd inating the decisions to be made. Neither AMI EU nor MATFA opp oses 1ha1 course. It is important that th e ends shou ld not be so played off aga inst the middl e, t ha t for wa nt of re so lution of t he preferred j urisdict ion iss ue, work at the Abattoir continues to be regu l ated by an inadequate industrial inst ru me n t. Accordingl y, pursu an t to s. 64(1) I authorise and direct Commi ss ioner Dempsey so to confer. If the conference l eads to an appli ca tion ior a joint sitting (e .g. to deal with the matter of an interim awa rd) t he appli ca tion can be d eal t with th en . I have consulted as requ i red by s. 65 prior to reachi ng th is decision. D.R. HALL, Chief Industri al Com mi ss ioner Appearances:- Mr R. M i ek lejohn for the Australasi an Meal Industry Union of Emp loyees (Quee nsl an d Branch) and Mr G. Arnold for the Meat and ,<\ Ilied Trades Fe derat ion of Australia (Queensl and Divisio n) Un ion of Emp loyers. Operative Date: NIA Decision - Applic at ion for Referen ce 10 Austral ian Industrial Rela tions Commission Re l eased: 8 October 1993 ################### ### ############ # ################# -- 1 of 1 --