Appeals

Print this page

Overview

A person who is aggrieved by a decision made by the Commission (other than a decision of a Full Bench or Expert Panel) may appeal the decision, with the permission of the Commission.^[1]

A person who is aggrieved is generally a person who is affected by a decision or order of the Commission and who does not agree with the decision or order. The term can extend beyond people whose legal interests are affected by the decision in question to people with an interest in the decision beyond that of an ordinary member of the public, such as, in some circumstances, a union or an employer association.^[2]

In determining whether a person is a 'person aggrieved' for the purposes of exercising a statutory right of appeal, it is necessary to consider the relevant statutory context.^[3]

Intervention

There is no provision of the Fair Work Act expressly dealing with intervention however the Commission has used the broad procedural power in s.589(1) to empower it to permit intervention in an appropriate case.^[4]

Time limit for appeal – 21 days

An appeal must be lodged with the Commission within 21 days after the date the decision being appealed was issued.^[5] If an appeal is lodged late, an application can be made for an extension to the time limit.^[6]

Related information

What is a day?

Considerations

In each appeal, a Full Bench of the Commission needs to determine two issues:

whether permission to appeal should be granted, and
whether there has been an error in the original decision.

Permission to appeal

The Fair Work Act provides that the Commission must grant permission to appeal if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.^[7]

Public interest

The task of assessing whether the public interest test has been met is a discretionary one involving a broad value judgment.^[8]

Some considerations that the Commission may take into account in assessing whether there is a public interest element include:

where a matter raises issues of importance and general application
where there is a diversity of decisions so that guidance from a Full Bench of the Commission is required
where the original decision manifests an injustice or the result is counter intuitive, or
that the legal principles applied appear disharmonious when compared with other recent decisions dealing with similar matters.^[9]

The public interest test is not satisfied simply by the identification of error or a preference for a different result.^[10]

Grounds for appeal

Error of law

An error of law may be a jurisdictional error, which means an error concerning the tribunal's power to do something, or it may be a non-jurisdictional error concerning any question of law which arises for decision in a matter.

In cases involving an error of law, the Commission is concerned with the correctness of the conclusion reached in the original decision, not whether that conclusion was reasonably open. ^[11]

Error of fact

An error of fact can exist where the Commission makes a decision that is 'contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence'.^[12]

In considering whether there has been an error of fact, the Commission will consider whether the conclusion reached was reasonably open on the facts.^[13] If the conclusion was reasonably open on the facts, then the Full Bench cannot change or interfere with the original decision.^[14]

It is not enough to show that the Full Bench would have arrived at a different conclusion to that of the original decision maker.^[15] The Full Bench may only intervene if it can be demonstrated that some error has been made in exercising the powers of the Commission.^[16]

Link to form

Form F7 – Notice of appeal

All forms are available on the Forms page of the Commission's website.

Case examples

Permission to appeal granted

Interpretation and misapplication of provisions of the Fair Work Act

McDonald's Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FWAFB 4602 (Watson VP, Kaufman SDP, Raffaelli C, 21 July 2010).

Facts

This decision involved an appeal against the decision of the Commission not to approve an enterprise agreement.

Outcome

The Full Bench determined that the Commission had misstated relevant tests in the Fair Work Act and misapplied relevant provisions central to the decision not to approve the agreement. On this basis, permission to appeal was granted and the original decision quashed.

Relevance

The Full Bench may only intervene and quash an original decision where it finds that an error has been made, in this instance the misapplication of relevant provisions.

Public interest

Re G.J.E. Pty Ltd [2013] FWCFB 1705 (Acton SDP, Smith DP, Ryan C, 3 April 2013).

Facts

This decision involved an appeal against a decision of the Commission not to approve an enterprise agreement. The employer had sought approval for the enterprise agreement on the basis that the employees were award free.

Outcome

The Commission disagreed with the employer, determining that the employees were covered by the General Retail Award 2010. On that basis, the agreement could not be approved because it did not pass the BOOT.

Relevance

The Full Bench considered that the appeal raised general issues regarding the coverage of modern awards and on that basis was satisfied that it was in the public interest to grant permission to appeal. However, the Full Bench was not satisfied that the Commission's decision was affected by error, and confirmed the original decision.

Misapplication of statutory test

Aperio Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (T/a Aperio Finewrap) v Sulemanovski [2011] FWAFB 1436 (Watson SDP, McCarthy SDP, Deegan C, 4 March 2011), [(2011) 203 IR 18].

Decision at first instance [2010] FWA 9958 and order PR505584 (Ryan C, 30 December 2010).

Facts

This decision involved an appeal against a decision of the Commission reinstating an employee on the basis that the employee's dismissal was without valid reason, and therefore harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Outcome

In deciding the initial application, the Full Bench determined that there had been a failure to properly consider whether there was a valid reason for termination in accordance with s.387(a). This misapplication of the statutory test was significant and productive of a plainly unjust result. The appeal was allowed, the order quashed, and the original application dismissed on rehearing.

Relevance

The Full Bench determined that the preservation of public confidence in the administration of justice was a matter of public interest and could be undermined by decisions that were manifestly unjust.

Interpretation of provisions of the Fair Work Act

Ulan Coal Mines Limited v Honeysett [2010] FWAFB 7578 (Giudice J, Hamberger SDP, Cambridge C, 12 November 2010), [(2010) 199 IR 363].

Decision at first instance [2010] FWA 4817 (Raffaelli C, 12 July 2010).

Facts

These were two appeals against a decision determining whether certain dismissals were the result of genuine redundancies.

Outcome

The Full Bench concluded that the Commission's decision was open on the evidence and other material before it and did not involve any error in interpretation of the section.

Relevance

These appeals concerned the interpretation of the redeployment exclusion set out in s.389(2) of the Fair Work Act. This provision of the Fair Work Act had not been considered by a Full Bench before, therefore the Full Bench determined that it was in the public interest to grant permission to appeal.

Permission to appeal refused

No error in findings of fact or exercise of discretion

Cotton On Group Services Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers[2014] FWCFB 8899 (Watson VP, Gostencnik DP, Bissett C, 23 December 2014).

Facts

Cotton On applied for permission to appeal a decision of the Commission to make a majority support determination regarding Cotton On employees.

Outcome

The Full Bench was required to consider whether the Commission had erred in finding that the group of employees covered by the majority support determination was 'fairly chosen'. The Full Bench was not satisfied that Cotton On had established any error in the way the discretion was exercised. Accordingly, permission to appeal was refused. It was not sufficient to argue that a different result should have been reached in the exercise of the discretion.

Relevance

A discretionary decision can only be overturned on appeal if it is established that there was an error in the way the discretion had been exercised.

Staying decisions

See Fair Work Act s.606

If the Commission hears an appeal from, or conducts a review of a decision, the Commission may order that the operation of the whole or part of the decision be stayed by making a stay order.

The stay order can be made on any terms and conditions that the Commission considers appropriate, until a decision in relation to the appeal or review is made, or the Commission makes a further order.

If a Full Bench is hearing the appeal or conducting the review, a stay order in relation to the appeal or review may be made by:

the Full Bench
the President
a Vice President, or
a Deputy President.

Exception – Protected action ballot order

A decision to make a protected action ballot order cannot be stayed.^[17]

References

^[1] Fair Work Act s.604(1).

^[2] See for eg Hart v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd and Bi-Lo Pty Limited T/A Coles and Bi Lo [2015] FWCFB 7090 (Watson VP, Kovacic DP, Roe C, 27 October 2015).

^[3] Tweed Valley Fruit Processors Pty Ltd v Ross and Others [1996] IRCA 407 (16 August 1996).

^[4] J.J. Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of Australia [2010] FWAFB 9963 (Lawler VP, O'Callaghan SDP, Bissett C, 23 December 2010) at para. 9.

^[5] Fair Work Commission Rules r.56(2)(a)‒(b).

^[6] Fair Work Commission Rules r.56(2)(c).

^[7] Fair Work Act s.604(2).

^[8] Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd v Lawler [2011] FCAFC 54 (19 April 2011) at para. 44, [(2011) 192 FCR 78].

^[9] GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Makin [2010] FWAFB 5343 (Kaufman SDP, Ives DP, Spencer C, 23 July 2010) at para. 27, [(2010) 197 IR 266].

^[10] See for eg Qantas Airways Limited v Carter [2012] FWAFB 5776 (Harrison SDP, Richards SDP, Blair C, 17 July 2012) at para. 58, [(2012) 223 IR 177]; Kable v Bozelle, Michael Keith T/A Matilda Greenbank [2015] FWCFB 3512 (Catanzariti VP, Watson VP, Gostencnik DP, 22 May 2015) at para. 18.

^[11] SPC Ardmona Operations Ltd v Esam PR957497 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Hamilton DP, Hingley C, 20 April 2005) at para. 40, [(2005) 141 IR 338].

^[12] Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139, 155‒156.

^[13] SPC Ardmona Operations Ltd v Esam PR957497 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Hamilton DP, Hingley C, 20 April 2005) at para. 40, [(2005) 141 IR 338].

^[14] House v The King [1936] HCA 40 (17 August 1936), [(1936) 55 CLR 499].

^[15] ibid.

^[16] ibid.

^[17] Fair Work Act s.606(3).

Updated time

Last updated

07 October 2019

We are building a new website. Check out our Beta site to see a sample and provide feedback.

Ribbon

Fair Work Commission

Search

Main menu

Industrial action benchbook

Appeals

Table of contents

On this page

Overview

Intervention

Time limit for appeal – 21 days

Related information

Considerations

Permission to appeal

Public interest

Grounds for appeal

Error of law

Error of fact

Link to form

Case examples

Permission to appeal granted

Facts

Outcome

Relevance

Facts

Outcome

Relevance

Facts

Outcome

Relevance

Facts

Outcome

Relevance

Permission to appeal refused

Facts

Outcome

Relevance

Staying decisions

Exception – Protected action ballot order

References

Updated time

Last updated

Bookmark/Search this post

Page feedback

Mini sites

Footer

Coronavirus (COVID-19) information