ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – application to have Commission determine dispute under the Pacific National Bulk Rail Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement) – jurisdictional issue of whether consultation clause and right to arbitration arise under clauses 30 and 31 of the Agreement were wholly dependent on a broader conclusion as to whether the subject matter of the dispute is about the application of the agreement – Commission had to first properly characterise the nature of the dispute (UFU v MFB) – Commission found from the orders sought by applicant and substance of case advanced by both parties that proper characterisation of dispute was a claim by the applicant that both the abolished position and the newly created roles are covered by the Agreement – respondent rejected applicant’s proposition and raised jurisdictional and merit questions as to why the Commission would not only refrain from answering the question, but should not, as a matter of jurisdiction, be able to determine the issue – Commission found abolished position and newly created roles not covered by the agreement and work performed in these roles not equivalent to work performed in a classification in the Agreement – held respondent not in breach of obligations under consultation clause – as dispute did not arise in relation to the application of the Agreement, dispute could not be brought under the Agreement – even if dispute could be brought under the Agreement, the Commission had no power to arbitrate – application dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Asciano Services P/L t/a Pacific National
…
