CASE PROCEDURES – representation – ss.185, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – appeal – Full Bench – in decision at first instance the Commission refused appellant opportunity to be heard in relation to applications by each of the respondents to have their enterprise agreements approved – appellant contended that the Commission erred as a matter of law in failing to make the order sought by the appellant – Full Bench considered and distinguished Collinsville (at [60]) as present case had employees of the respondent who were members of the appellant and who were covered by enterprise agreements which would cease to apply to those employees if the new enterprise agreements were to be approved – distinction raised issues of importance and general application such that the public interest was enlivened – permission to appeal granted – appellant of the opinion that a right to be heard existed in relation to an application for approval of an enterprise agreement in circumstances where the union and its members are covered by, and the union allegedly has rights under, an existing enterprise agreement which will cease to apply if a new enterprise agreement is approved – Full Bench of the view that appellant was not a person whose rights, interests or legitimate expectations would be directly affected by any decision to approve the new enterprise agreements – appellant may be affected, indirectly or consequentially, by a decision to approve new enterprise agreements, but such an impact not sufficient to give appellant right to be heard in application for the new enterprise agreements – appeal dismissed. Appeal by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union against decision of Riordan C of 23 November 2015 [[2015] FWC 7345] Re: MGI Piling (NSW) P/L and Ors
…
