CASE PROCEDURES – procedural and interim decisions – s.589 Fair Work Act 2009 – application brought on second day of hearings regarding competing scope orders – scope orders for three agreements sought by Unitywater and AWU, with application for one agreement for enterprise sought by ASU and CFMEU and supported by other unions – CFMEU sought further scope orders for either one agreement or alternatively two agreements – interim order sought to allow CFMEU to advance its position – HSU v Victorian Hospitals Industrial Association & Ors applied – Commission can make interim orders if there is a serious question to be tried and if balance of convenience favours making the order – CFMEU argued that if scope order for three agreements granted and accepted by employees, this would preclude its alternative two-agreement position – sought order that Unitywater ‘ceases and refrains from making any requests for employees to approve an enterprise agreement until FWC makes a decision on the substantive application’ – opposed by Unitywater who argued the question to be tried was weak – submitted arguments against three agreements apply equally in two and these led nowhere in advancing bargaining – issue of defective concerns notices raised – Unitywater contended interim order could also result in prejudicial delay – Commission held that the effect of the order as sought would be to re-open matter with fresh grounds – foundation for scope application considered weak due to notice of concerns not raising two agreement alternative – concerns notice likely defective – due to likelihood of causing delay and late nature of filing, Commission held that the balance of convenience weighed against interim order – application dismissed. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Northern SEQ Distributor – Retailer Authority t/a Unitywater
…
