RIGHT OF ENTRY – dispute over right of entry – discussions – ss.492, 505, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – appeal – Full Bench – appellant and CQS could not agree upon a room or area of the premises in which a permit holder was to conduct interviews or hold discussions with employees – appellant sought a declaration that crib rooms of Dragline 34 and Dragline 35 were rooms or areas in which discussions may be held under s.492(3) of FW Act where agreement on location cannot be reached – at first instance the Commission found that appellant was not entitled to hold discussions in Draglines – for permission to appeal and an appeal – grounds of appeal advanced were: that the Commission’s interpretation of a s.492(3)(b) contrary to grammatical meaning of the words, inconsistent and contrary to purpose of the provision and inconsistent with objects of FW Act; that the Commission was wrong in failing to interpret s.492(3)(b) as meaning that if the purpose of an area or room was considered appropriate for the purpose of taking meal or other breaks by an occupier, that area, so long as the persons to be interviewed or participate in discussions ordinarily took meal or other breaks in that room or area, was appropriate for them to be interviewed or hold discussions with a permit holder; and the the Commission was wrong in failing to find that the purpose of an area or room that was provided to employees which contained all the things that are associated with eating meals or taking other breaks that are usually found in such an area was provided by their employer so that they could take their meal and other breaks – appellant submitted it was in the public interest to grant permission to appeal because the matter concerned an important question concerning the rights of permit holders and the rights of employees to participate in discussions; the matter concerned an important questions about the proper construction of s.492(3)(b); and the matter has significant consequences for permit holders, occupiers of premises and employees aqnd employers generally, and for the mining industry specially – first time since the enactment of the current s.492 that a Full Bench has been called upon to interpret the section – Full Bench found it was in the public interest that permission to appeal be granted – Austral Bricks Case adopted – no dispute that there was no agreement between the parties on a room or area to conduct an interview or hold discussions – dispute centred on the arguments of the parties in relation to the requirements of s.492(3)(b) – held the broad language of the section must be given its ordinary and natural meaning – Full Bench did not consider that the use of an area for multiple purposes deprives it of the description in s.492(3)(b) – key consideration was the purpose or purposes of providing the area from the employer’s perspective – as the area was provided, in part, for the taking of meal and other breaks it satisfies the description in s.492(3)(b) – Full Bench concluded that a permit holder may conduct an interview or hold discussions in the specified locations – appeal allowed – decision at first instance quashed. Appeal by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union against deision of Asbury DP of 2 November 2015 [[2015] FWC 3694] Re: Central Queensland Services P/L c/a BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance
…
