ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – – ss.604, 739 Fair Work Act 2009 – appeal – Full Bench – respondent issued notifications that it intended to proceed with significant change in accordance with consultation provisions in Pacific National Coal NSW Enterprise Agreement 2013 (Agreement) – appellant applied to Commission to deal with a dispute involving respondent under s.739 of FW Act – alleged respondent had failed to meet its obligations under Agreement in relation to significant change – in application, appellant named itself as applicant and did not identify by name the employee parties to the dispute – respondent raised jurisdictional objection – claimed a valid dispute had not been notified by appellant and lodged in Commission and clause A30.2(a) of Agreement had not been complied with – at first instance Commission upheld jurisdictional objection – held application not been made in accordance with FW Act – dismissed application – appellant sought permission to appeal – Commission must grant permission to appeal if satisfied in the public interest to do so – GlaxoSmithKline applied – rarely appropriate to grant permission to appeal unless an arguable case of appealable error demonstrated [Wan] – Commission at first instance dismissed application for two reasons – first, clause A30.2(a) not complied with – second, application did not name any employee affected by change – Full Bench noted that by virtue of clause A29.3(a), clause A30.2(a) was not required to be complied with – no obligation to provide respondent with notification of grievance – Full Bench satisfied Commission erred by concluding application had not been made in accordance with FW Act on the grounds clause A30.2(a) had not been complied with – Full Bench noted the FW Act does not require an application made under s.739 to identify by name each employee who was a party to the dispute nor does Agreement – noted appellant had provided respondent with names of employees after application had been lodged – held that the fact appellant did not provide names of employee parties at time of or prior to lodging application did not mean Commission did not have jurisdiction to deal with dispute – Full Bench satisfied that Commission at first instance erred in relying on the fact that the application did not name employee parties and in concluding that application was not properly made in accordance with FW Act – permission to appeal granted – decision quashed – appellant and respondent accepted that dispute subject to application was at end – matter not required to be remitted – application dismissed. Appeal by Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union against decision of Sams DP of 5 January 2017 [[2017] FWC 27] Re: Asciano Services P/L t/a Pacific National
…
