ENTERPRISE BARGAINING – bargaining order – ss.228, 230, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – appeal – Full Bench – application by CFMEU for bargaining orders against LCR Mining Group (LCR) under s.229 of FW Act granted in decision at first instance – appeal by LCR against findings that LCR not meeting good faith bargaining requirement to attend and participate in meetings under s.228(1)(a) and that it was reasonable to make bargaining order under s.230 – Commission must grant permission if satisfied it is in the public interest – public interest test is discretionary, involving broad value judgment – Commission found interpretation of ‘meeting’ and ‘attending’ for purposes of s.228 and 230 an important matter with broad implications, particularly regarding Commission’s role in facilitating bargaining – J.J. Richards & Sons adopted – found Commissioner’s interpretation of s.228 and s.230 that in no circumstances could a tele/videoconference constitute a ‘meeting’ or qualify as ‘attending’ for purposes of s.228(1)(a) conflicted with principle that in absence of clear necessity, words of limitation should not be read into legislation where they do not appear – Tahmoor Coal P/L considered – would be adverse consequences for parties if restrictive interpretation of FW Act prevented use of conferencing technologies in bargaining process – in absence of express words of limitation, ‘meeting’ and ‘attending’ must be given a contemporary meaning in context of FW Act to encompass ‘meetings of the mind’ – interpretation of s.228(1)(a) at first instance too restrictive and inconsistent with objects of FW Act – appeal upheld – decision at first instance quashed and order set aside. Appeal by LCR Mining Group P/L against decision and order of Saunders C of 20 November 2015 [[2015] FWC 7970] Re: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.
…
