RIGHT OF ENTRY – application for permit – ss. 512, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – at first instance Commission refused application for entry permit to be issued to Mr Davis of the CFMEU – held he was not fit and proper because he was penalised in Cradden for participating in conduct in disregard to industrial laws – no evidence he had changed his attitudes – no evidence of remorse or contrition for prior actions – community could not be confident his past conduct and attitudes would not be exhibited in relation to an issued entry permit – CFMEU did not directly address concerns – appellant subsequently sought permission to appeal – submitted Commission failed to take into account whether imposition of conditions would render Mr Davis fit and proper – appeal in public interest because of relevance to future like applications – lack of consideration of conditions was a jurisdictional error – respondent submitted appeal lacked merit – appellant did not raise issue or respond to Commission’s concerns at first instance – permit conditions would not have changed the result – respondent could still bring future applications to apply for a permit – Hatcher VP and Bissett C noted Commission did not generally consider the imposition of conditions on a permit under s.515 until an official was deemed fit and proper under s.512 [MUA v FWC] – suggested that the fitness and propriety assessment is in reference to all conditions upon the entry permit including conditions imposed by s.515 – proposed not to deal with this observation to finality because permission to appeal refused on other grounds – not in public interest – appellant did not propose any conditions that could help make Mr Davis a fit and proper person given Commission’s fundamental concerns – inappropriate to grant permission to appeal to allow the appellant to advance a merits case it did not advance at first instance – any conditions unlikely to alter Commission’s view that Mr Davis was fit and proper – appellant could make a fresh application without prejudice from the refusal to grant permission to appeal – Watson VP agreed with the grounds of the other Full Bench Members in refusing to grant permission to appeal – held Commission at first instance did not refuse to consider the imposition of conditions on the entry permit – rather considered the imposition of conditions was not relevant because Mr Davis’ fitness and propriety assessment would not be altered by the imposition of conditions – Commission did not err in its decision at first instance – permission to appeal refused. Appeal by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union against decision of Richards SDP of 30 March 2016 [[2016] FWC 1984] Re: Director of the Fair Work and Building Industry Inspectorate
…
