In this matter, the applicant sought an order under s 66 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 for an alteration to the respondent union’s rules.  The applicant sought the order despite the quorum requirement for a members’ meeting not being met, as there was prior support for the Rules alteration.

Under a previous matter, an order was made by the Commission to establish an Interim Board of the union to enable it to continue while amendments to the union’s Rules were being progressed.  Further orders were made by the commission to extend the operation of the Interim Board to September 2025.

Subsequently, two member meetings were held; the first in February 2025, which passed a resolution supporting the rule changes, and the second in June 2025 which authorised the Interim Board to apply for rule alterations. However the June meeting did not meet the quorum requirement of 50 percent of the union’s membership plus one member. 

The applicant stated that while the quorum requirement for the meeting was not met, the membership attendance was high, and that previously a resolution had been passed by members for the proposed Rules amendments to proceed.

Having regard to the evidence presented, Chief Commissioner Kenner exercised powers under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 to grant a waiver to the quorum requirement for the June meeting, allowing the amendments to proceed.  Accordingly, an Order was issued.

The decision can be read here. 

In related proceedings before the Commission, the applicant union sought authorisation from the Commission in Court Session under s 62 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 to alter its Rules, specifically to align the eligibility of membership to the applicant’s federal counterpart, and to enable those elected to office within the federal branch to also hold office with the applicant.  The Commission in Court session was satisfied that the applicant had complied with its Rules, and an order was issued to register to the Rule alterations.

In this application the applicant union sought declarations to support the issue of a s 71 certificate, namely: that the office of the applicant is a counterpart to the federal branch, that qualifications of persons for membership are deemed to be the same, and that for every office in the applicant, there is a corresponding office in the federal branch.  In support of the application, a statutory declaration was filed by the Deputy Secretary of the applicant union, confirming that the application sought to align eligibility for membership with the federal Branch, and declared that the offices of the applicant and the federal Branch were almost identical.

In reviewing the statutory requirements relating to membership and a comparison of office holders, the Commission in Court Session concluded that the functions and powers of the offices of the applicant and federal branch are identical, and that for each office in the applicant there was a corresponding office in the federal branch.  Accordingly, declarations were issued.

The decision can be read here. 

The applicant union filed an application with the Commission under s 80BH of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (IR Act), to be named as a party to a New State Instrument, the Local Government Industry Award 2020 Industrial Agreement (LGIA). A question arose about the interpretation of s 80BB of the IR Act which sets out provisions about New State Instruments.

New State Instruments were created under the IR Act when local governments transitioned to the State industrial relations system in 2023.

Upon the transition, federal instruments that had applied previously - including the Local Government Industry Award 2020 (LGIA) - become ‘New State Instruments’ and apply to declared employers with the same terms as the previous federal instruments.

The central issue considered by the Commission was whether s 80BB creates one collective New State Instrument applying to all local governments covered by the LGIA or creates separate New State Instruments for each individual local government employer.

The applicant argued that s 80BB creates a single multi-employer New State Instrument, termed the "Local Government Industry Award 2020 Industrial Agreement," collectively applying to all relevant local governments. The applicant relied on the coverage clause of the LGIA, which states it covers employers throughout Australia in the local government industry, to support this collective approach.

Conversely, several local government respondents argued that s 80BB results in separate New State Instruments for each individual employer, each with the same terms as the LGIA. The respondents argued that the singular use of "declared employer” and the objects of the IR Act, which promotes enterprise-level collective bargaining, supported this approach.

The Minister for Industrial Relations intervened to support the respondent’s position.

Senior Commissioner Cosentino found that the legislative context, including references to individual employers in the IR Act and the Fair Work Act 2009, supported the creation of separate new State instruments for each declared employer. The Senior Commissioner concluded that s 80BB refers to a New State Instrument that applies to an individual declared employer and not a collection of multiple declared employers, and that accordingly, a separate New State Instrument is created for each individual local government to whom the LGIA applied immediately to the local government transition.  The Senior Commissioner also concluded that as a consequence of the interpretation of s 80BB, the applicant’s request to be named as a party to a single multi-employer New State Instrument could not proceed, as no such State instrument exists.

The decision can be read here. 

The applicant commenced proceedings in the Commission, alleging that he was harshly, oppressively, and unfairly dismissed from his employment.  The respondent disputed the claim, asserting that the applicant resigned voluntarily and raised a jurisdictional objection to the application, including that it was filed beyond the 28-day time limit allowed for such claims under the Industrial Relations Act 1979. 

The applicant commenced employment with the respondent as a part-time logistics coordinator under a written contract specifying 30 hours per week with a clause allowing averaging of hours.  His role involved furniture removal and installation for property styling.  Disputes arose regarding the application of the averaging clause and overtime payments, with the applicant claiming he worked more than contracted hours without additional pay, which the respondent denied.

The applicant did not dispute that he resigned, but contended that the resignation was forced due to the employer’s conduct, which allegedly breached the Fair Work Act 2009, the relevant award, and his employment contract.  The respondent maintained that the resignation was voluntary and supported this with text messages exchanged shortly after the resignation, confirming the applicant’s notice period and intention to work out the notice.

After reviewing evidence including that of the applicant’s prior Fair Work Commission hearing, text messages, and oral submissions, Commissioner Kucera found no sufficient evidence that the applicant was forced to resign or that the employer’s conduct was the principal cause of termination.  The Commissioner found the applicant’s resignation was voluntary, albeit given in haste or as a response to workplace grievances.  The applicant had other avenues to address disputes and was not in a significantly unequal power position relative to the respondent.

As the application was filed out of time, and given the lack of merit in the claim, no extension of time was granted.  Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The decision can be read here.

The applicant union commenced proceedings to seek approval to alter its rules to align with its federal counterpart, and to allow those elected to office in its federal counterpart to also hold the same office in the applicant union.  In support of the application were two statutory declarations made by the Secretary of the applicant union, which outlined the steps taken by the applicant to give effect to the alterations to the applicant’s rules including the rules relating to its Constitution, Elections and Alteration of Rules.

The Commission in Court Session found that the applicant complied with the relevant internal procedures for executive approval, member notification and the opportunity for objections to the alterations.  The Commission in Court Session held that the application was duly authorised in accordance with the applicant’s Rules, members were informed, and no objections were made.  Accordingly, the Commission in Court Session authorised the proposed alterations to the Rules of the applicant as sought.

The decision can be read here.