About Us

We work collaboratively with our clients to build strong, sustainable relationships. Our team is committed to delivering consistent high standards of service, and we understand the importance of accessibility. Working with us, you'll enjoy open communication, meaning well scoped, properly resourced and effectively managed matters.

Learn More

Latest Case

Advising global cryptocurrency exchange operators on entry into Australian market July 31, 2018

The rise in popularity and demand for cryptocurrency trading has resulted in a number of cryptocurrency exchange operators expanding into different countries, including Australia, to create a global brand. In Australia, new laws and regulations … Continued

Latest News

Maddocks advises French firm on major construction company acquisition August 6, 2018

Monday 6 August 2018 Law firm Maddocks recently advised French firm Bouygues Construction on its acquisition of leading Australian construction and fitout business AW Edwards. The acquisition is a key part of Bouygues’ continued expansion … Continued

Latest Article

Do your construction documents conform with the new Ministerial Directions and Instructions for Public Construction Procurement? August 15, 2018

Are you a state government department or public body which procures public construction works and services? Are you in the process of determining which form of contract will be most appropriate for your procurement to issue … Continued

No union, no problem? Not always.

The High Court of Australia has upheld an earlier decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court that a union that is a registered industrial organisation is entitled to represent the industrial interests of employees who, although eligible to be members of the union in question, have not actually joined it.1

BACKGROUND

Regional Express Holdings Limited (Rex) is a commercial airline company. In September 2014, Rex sent a letter to short-listed cadet pilot program participants suggesting that although the right to accommodation of a particular standard during layovers was provided in the Regional Express Pilots’ Enterprise Agreement 2011, any Rex cadet who attempted to exercise this right would be considered to be ‘totally lacking in integrity’ and not be given a command position. Cadets were requested to provide a written undertaking to this effect to assess ‘how far you are motivated to go above and beyond the call of duty for the Company’.

Although none of the affected cadets were its members, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (the Federation) applied to the Federal Circuit Court for pecuniary penalty orders, alleging that the letter constituted adverse action, coercion and misrepresentation under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

In making its application, the Federation relied on section 540(6)(b)(ii) of the FW Act which says that an application for an order in relation to contravention of a civil remedy provision may be made if ‘the industrial association is entitled to represent the industrial interests of the person.’ The Federation contended that as the cadets in question met the Federation’s eligibility requirements, the Federation was entitled to represent their industrial interests.

Rex applied to have the case summarily dismissed on the basis that the Federation did not name the cadets in question and could only act on behalf of current members. Both the application to the Federal Circuit Court and subsequent appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court were dismissed.

Rex appealed the decision to the High Court.

NON-MEMBER REPRESENTATION

The High Court upheld the decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court and dismissed Rex’s appeal, stating that section 540(6)(b)(ii) of the FW Act applies to registered organisations in relation to contraventions which affect ‘a designated class of persons in relation to whom the organisation has industrial coverage’.

The High Court held that the Full Bench of the Federal Court had correctly applied Dunlop Rubber2 and that the ‘entitlement to represent should apply to registered organisations in the same way that it applied to registered trade unions (under previous legislation).’

As a possible indicator of future decisions, the High Court also said that the ability to apply for orders may not be limited to unions that are registered organisations but may also apply ‘to other forms of industrial organisation having a real interest in ensuring compliance with civil remedy provisions.’ However, the Court declined to make any finding on this issue.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR EMPLOYERS

This decision confirms that unions that are registered industrial organisations are entitled to commence proceedings against an employer, even if the employees in question are only eligible to join the union and are not currently members.

Employers should be aware that contraventions of the FW Act may be raised by not only employees, but by registered unions, regardless of whether or not any employees are members. Employers should also watch this space to see if the court expands this right to include other industrial bodies, regardless of whether or not they are registered. Though there are not many unregistered unions active in the federal space, the ongoing ‘turf war’ between the SDA and Retail and Fast Food Workers Union is an example of how employers (in one celebrated instance, Coles) can be caught in the crossfire between registered and unregistered unions.

If you have any queries regarding this, or require assistance with a workplace matter, please contact a member of our Employment, Safety and People team.

[1] Regional Express Holdings Limited v Australian Federation of Air Pilots [2017] HCA 55.

[2] R v Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd; Ex parte Federated Miscellaneous Workers’ Union of Australia (1957) 97 CLR 71.

 

Author
Jade Bond | Lawyer
T +61 2 9291 6138
E jade.bond@maddocks.com.au

The High Court of Australia has upheld an earlier decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court that a union that is a registered industrial organisation is entitled to represent the industrial interests of employees who, although eligible to be members of the union in question, have not actually joined it.1

BACKGROUND

Regional Express Holdings Limited (Rex) is a commercial airline company. In September 2014, Rex sent a letter to short-listed cadet pilot program participants suggesting that although the right to accommodation of a particular standard during layovers was provided in the Regional Express Pilots’ Enterprise Agreement 2011, any Rex cadet who attempted to exercise this right would be considered to be ‘totally lacking in integrity’ and not be given a command position. Cadets were requested to provide a written undertaking to this effect to assess ‘how far you are motivated to go above and beyond the call of duty for the Company’.

Although none of the affected cadets were its members, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (the Federation) applied to the Federal Circuit Court for pecuniary penalty orders, alleging that the letter constituted adverse action, coercion and misrepresentation under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

In making its application, the Federation relied on section 540(6)(b)(ii) of the FW Act which says that an application for an order in relation to contravention of a civil remedy provision may be made if ‘the industrial association is entitled to represent the industrial interests of the person.’ The Federation contended that as the cadets in question met the Federation’s eligibility requirements, the Federation was entitled to represent their industrial interests.

Rex applied to have the case summarily dismissed on the basis that the Federation did not name the cadets in question and could only act on behalf of current members. Both the application to the Federal Circuit Court and subsequent appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court were dismissed.

Rex appealed the decision to the High Court.

NON-MEMBER REPRESENTATION

The High Court upheld the decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court and dismissed Rex’s appeal, stating that section 540(6)(b)(ii) of the FW Act applies to registered organisations in relation to contraventions which affect ‘a designated class of persons in relation to whom the organisation has industrial coverage’.

The High Court held that the Full Bench of the Federal Court had correctly applied Dunlop Rubber2 and that the ‘entitlement to represent should apply to registered organisations in the same way that it applied to registered trade unions (under previous legislation).’

As a possible indicator of future decisions, the High Court also said that the ability to apply for orders may not be limited to unions that are registered organisations but may also apply ‘to other forms of industrial organisation having a real interest in ensuring compliance with civil remedy provisions.’ However, the Court declined to make any finding on this issue.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR EMPLOYERS

This decision confirms that unions that are registered industrial organisations are entitled to commence proceedings against an employer, even if the employees in question are only eligible to join the union and are not currently members.

Employers should be aware that contraventions of the FW Act may be raised by not only employees, but by registered unions, regardless of whether or not any employees are members. Employers should also watch this space to see if the court expands this right to include other industrial bodies, regardless of whether or not they are registered. Though there are not many unregistered unions active in the federal space, the ongoing ‘turf war’ between the SDA and Retail and Fast Food Workers Union is an example of how employers (in one celebrated instance, Coles) can be caught in the crossfire between registered and unregistered unions.

If you have any queries regarding this, or require assistance with a workplace matter, please contact a member of our Employment, Safety and People team.

[1] Regional Express Holdings Limited v Australian Federation of Air Pilots [2017] HCA 55.

[2] R v Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd; Ex parte Federated Miscellaneous Workers’ Union of Australia (1957) 97 CLR 71.

 

Author
Jade Bond | Lawyer
T +61 2 9291 6138
E jade.bond@maddocks.com.au