Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees v The Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia, Queensland Union of Employees & Anor [1992] ICQ 4 (1992) 139 QGIG 923

922 QUEENSLA ND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [24 April, 1992 · 1 I 24 April, 1992) QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL COU RT Industrial Relations Act 1990- 1991 s. 9.4 - application for leave to appeal s. 9.5 - application for an order to stay decision of industrial commission Federated lronworkers Association of Australia (Queensland Branch) Un ion of Employees (Nos. C29 and C30 of /991) AND The Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia, Queensland, Union of Employees (Nos. CJ1 and CJ2 of 1991) AND The Federated Furnishing Trade Society of Australasia (Q'land Branch) Union of Employees 923 FURNITURE MANUFACTU RI NG, REPAIRING , AND INSTALLATION, AND GLASS BEVELLING, ETC., AWA RD - STATE BLIND AND SHADE INDUSTRY AWARD - STATE MUSICAL INSTRUMENT MAKERS' AWARD - STATE PICTURE FRAME MAKERS' AW ARD - SOUTH-EASTER N DIVISION WOODWORKERS (MISCELLANEOUS) AWARD - STATE JUSTICE MOYNIHAN, PRESIDENT 9 April I 992 Leave to Appeal - Decision - Industrial Commission - Inter- vention - Application Refused - Con_solidation - Thirty-e_ight Hour Weck - Union Coverage - Public Interest - Apphcallons Dismissed. REPORT ON JUDGMENT In giving his Judgment from the Bench on 24 February 1992, t he President said:- "These applications are in respect of leave to appeal pursuant to section 9.4 of the Act as a consequence of the lndustnal Com- missioner refusing to grant applications for intervention on behalf of the applicant unions in a number of proceedings before him which were concerned to consolidate a number of Awards and to deal with the issue ofa 38 hour week in respect of the consequences. 1 suppose one can describe it, of such a consolidation. The history of the matters in question is ad':'erted to in the reasons for _the Commissioner's decision and I will not repeat what he has said. In essence it seems to me that the conclusion came to be based on a view, as he put it on page 2 of the print copy of the decision, that 'As far as the Awards before me are concerned the FFTS(Q) has covered the field to the exclusion of the FIA(Q) and no reason has been advanced as to any new circumstances which warrant the injection of the FIA(Q) into the proceedings.'. For completeness it may be noted that he went on later to say th at so far as AAESDA was concerned it might have had consti- tutional coverage of a number of occupations liste_d, but none _of the awards which were the subJect of the apphca11on before him covered those occupations. He went on to say, and I quote 'I have decided, after considering all the information before me, that intervention should not be granted to the FIA(Q) or AAESDA in the proceedings concerning the reduction in working hours to 38 in the Awards before me or in matters conceming the consolidation of those Awards into one where such consolidation seeks not to go beyond existing areas of application or classification coverage.'. As he acknowledged. 1ft~at situation were to change it would necessarily have to be dealt w11h. Argument on behalf of the applicants before me focused on what seems to have been said, was the untoward exclusion by the -- 1 of 2 -- 924 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE Commissioner of a number of members whose membership, the considerations of which, are adequately canvassed in the reasons that the Commissioner gave. I do not think that his decision is as narrowly focused as that. The Commissioner canvassed a number of factual considerations on the basis of evidence and his evaluation of the evidence which was before him. He expressed himself in terms of being unab le to arrive at firm conclusions in respect of some aspects of those matters and as to his be i ng left in doubt as to various aspects of the events relied on by the applicant as requiring its membership to be considered as though it had been enlarged by the outcome of the proceedings for amalgamation (by proceedings I include negotiations). As I say I do not think that the Commissioner disposed of the ma tter on a basis quite as simple as t hat contended for by the applicant. He took the view that on the whole concatenation of facts the ou tcome was such that as he put it, no reason had been advanced as to any new circumstances warranting the injection of the FIA(Q) and that the Position with respect of AAESDA was as I have outlined it. Now, those were, it seems to me, valid considerations which were open to him 9n all the circumstances. I am by no means persuaded that the applicant's prospects of success are obvious or indeed that the Commissioner's co nclusions are attendant with error or attend- ant with apparent error to the extent of rendering it in the public interest, that the lea ve should be granted. In any event I am not persuaded that the matter is of such importance that an appeal shou ld be bought in the public interest. It is true that this is not a proceedings of the same kind as that which gave rise to the considerations canvassed in Illaton and the Australian Bank Employees Union which is in vo lume I 35 of the Qu eensland Government Industrial Ga z eue. But nevertheless we are talking about the question ofleave to intervene in a proceedings which the Commissioner declined to allow in the particular cir- cumstances as he found them in respect of the proceedings which took place before him. As I have already indicated I do not think it has been demonstrated that the Commissioner's conclusions were other than open to him on the fa cts which were canvassed before him at some length or that he erred in the conclusions relevant to his decision which he arrived a t. In the circumstances then, as I have indicated, I am not persuaded that in either case the matter is of such impartance that an appeal should be brought in the public interest. I would dismiss each of the applications for leave to appeal to a Full Bench of the Com- mission and I would also dismiss the applications for a stav of the proceed in gs before the Commission being founded as those applications were on the prospects of success in the appeal before the Full Bench of the Industrial Commission." . Dated this ninth day of April, 1992. By the Court, [L S. ) R.H. BL UMSOM, Assistant Industrial Registrar Appearances:- Mr J . Batch, wi th him Mr M. Horton for tbe Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia (Queensland Branch) Union of Emplovees and Th e Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia, Queensland, Union of Employees. Mr H. A. Herbert for Th e Federat ed Furnishing Trade Soci ety of Australasia ( Q' land Branch) Un ion of Employees. Operative Date: N/ A Judgment - FIA and AAESDA v. FFTSA (24 April, 1992 24 April, 1992] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 925 . j · i -- 2 of 2 --