Jaggi v City of Parramatta Council

1. Mr Fisher has filed an "Application for Review" which also sets out the nature of his substantive claim (Claim). This document is taken by the Commission to be his appeal application (Appeal).
2. It is not clear from the nature of the Claim that the Commission has jurisdiction. The Claim appears to be against a private company and one whom Mr Fisher has confirmed is not his employer. Further, I have doubts as to whether this even an industrial dispute.
3. Mr Fisher has set out grounds and reasons in his Appeal:

"GROUNDS AND REASONS

1. The Applicant faces catastrophic loss including bankruptcy and homelessness by an unlawful access and interference by UGL rail Regional Linx staff with personal and professional records of workers in NSW maintained by a third party RIW.

2. The actions of UGL Rail Regional Linx have state-wide implications for workers state-wide adversely impacting workers legal right to work by violation of workers personal and professional records. The Actions of UGL rail Regional Linx impact a vast state-wide government owned rail network and workers who work on that network. The actions of UGL Regional Rail have state wide implications for workers beyond the Applicant. UGL RL access and interference with a workers personal and professional records must stem form a valid action and legal authority to do so.

3. The Industrial Relations Commission NSW registry failed to exercise a wide-ranging discretion and jurisdiction pursuant of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 NSW including S190, (2).

'The Commission has the power to act on its own initiative to resolve an industrial dispute, but does so rarely.'

'It is not its practice to do so in respect of a dispute involving an individual or more generally where there is no evidence that the employer and relevant industrial organisation are in dispute.'

Decision of Monique Welch Registrar

Industrial Relations Commission NSW. 1.12.2025"

(Reproduced verbatim.)

1. Mr Fisher has also submitted an outline of submission. That submission begins by taking the Commission to s 130 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. The substance of Mr Fisher's appeal is that the Commission may act on its own initiative and should do so in this case.
2. Mr Fisher then sets out further reasons, including:

"3. My standing as an individual worker can be enlivened by the Commissions initiative on the basis the obstruction to the workplace is being applied discriminatory to workers collectively across NSW unlawfully and absent a company policy that enlivens an authority.

4. The UGL Manager in this case is operating on the basis that ownership and control of the country Rail Network is transferred to UGL Rail by virtue of a 10-year contract with Transport For NSW.

5. The Industrial Relations Commission of NSW (IRC) can initiate proceedings on its own initiative in a variety of circumstances, particularly related to industrial matters and compliance with industrial law.

6. In my respectful submission, the vast state-wide CRN remains the property and responsibility of the NSW Government and as such to a large extent is a NSW Government workplace controlled by the NSW Government."

1. At paragraph 7 Mr Fisher sets out what is in fact I think the nub of his claim for the Commission's jurisdiction. It is that the company against which he makes a complaint, or one of the managers employed by that company, is called UGL Rail Regional Links (UGL). According to the application, UGL operates on behalf of the New South Wales State Government certain activities using the Country Rail Network (CRN). As he set it out:

"7. Rather than UGL being an owner of the CRN with outright control, it is a representative of the NSW state Government, and can only act within the law in order to enliven an authority conveyed by the contract. Where UGL acts outside of the law, it acts outside its contractual obligations, and where UGL acts outside the law it fails to enliven an authority. The contract with the State Government does not enliven an authority to act outside the law and as such UGL ceases to be a representative of the NSW state government. It is my respectful submission that where UGL as a representative of the NSW state Government acts outside the law, jurisdiction of the NSW IRC is enlivened to review industrial disputes on the CRN."

1. Mr Fisher's argument, in substance, is that, because CRN is a State Government owned entity, the workplace is a State Government workplace and therefore the Commission has jurisdiction. The Commission cannot accept this as a correct statement of the Commission's jurisdiction in respect of s 130 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.
2. The Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to s 130 depends on the employer being a State Government employer, or in some cases a Local Government employer. Federal System employers, which is corporations, are captured by the Fair Work Act 2009 and remain outside the jurisdiction of the Commission.
3. Largely, that is by way of background because fundamentally what the appeal seeks to do is to overturn a decision by the Registrar not to accept an application notifying an industrial dispute by a legal person who does not have the authority to make such an application.
4. The Registrar, in my view, correctly exercised her discretion to refuse an application which, on its face, seeks to ask the Commission to exercise the Commission's initiative to attempt to resolve a dispute.
5. In the Commission's view, it is fundamental that an application cannot be made to the Commission to exercise the Commission's own initiative.
6. More importantly, even to the extent that such an initiative can be exercised, it can only be exercised by the Commission. That clearly does not include the Registrar. It would need a member of the Commission to make such a decision. Mr Fisher may feel this is somewhat Kafkaesque in the sense that he cannot get past the Registrar and the registry to file an application.
7. The Commission considers this as an appropriate exercise of the Registrar's discretion.
8. I repeat, it is not possible to make an application to the Commission for the Commission to exercise on its jurisdiction on its own initiative. Such an application can only be made by a party set out in s 130(1). Accordingly, the Appeal is refused.