The applicant union commenced proceedings to register the proposed industrial agreement, supported by the two respondent unions. Following the initial application an intervening union sought to intervene the registration process. While the intervening union was part of the negotiations to draft the proposed agreement, it was neither a signatory to nor named as a party to the proposed agreement. The application to intervene sought to make submissions on whether the agreement should be registered, and if the intervening union should also be included as a party to the proposed agreement.  

Negotiations for the proposed agreement followed State legislative changes, in which the local government industry transitioned to the State industrial relations system, allowing pre-existing agreements to continue until renewed or replaced. During negotiations, the intervening union raised concerns about being included as a party to the proposed agreement, and representation of its members. These issues were not resolved, however the parties reached consensus on other terms, including pay rates and classification structures. 

Simultaneously, the intervening union and respondent unions were involved in proceedings under s.72A of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, concerning representation rights of the unions concerning local government employees. The applicant’s position on the intervening union’s inclusion as a party to the proposed agreement is contingent upon the outcome of these proceedings.

The intervening union’s intervention application raised several claims, including the argument that the IR Act promotes goodwill and fair bargaining, and that the applicant misled it regarding its inclusion in the proposed agreement, which affected their participation in negotiations.

The applicant argued that the intervening union failed to demonstrate sufficient interest in the application and that the claims of misrepresentation of members were unsubstantiated. The applicant also emphasises the intervening union’s involvement in the negotiations was conditional on the resolution of the representation issue in the s.72A proceedings.

Commissioner Kucera upheld the application for leave to intervene, allowing the intervening union to argue its case regarding the proposed agreement’s validity and its potential inclusion as a party. The Commissioner determined that a conciliation conference be scheduled to facilitate discussions on the substantive application. 
 
The decision can be read here.