Secretary of the Ministry of Health v The New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association - [2022] NSWSC 1178 - NSWSC 2022 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWSC

Secretary of the Ministry of Health v The New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association

[2022] NSWSC 1178

Supreme Court of NSW|2022-07-19|Before: Walton J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2022-07-19

Before

Walton J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (85 paragraphs)

[1]

INTRODUCTION

On 15 February and 31 March 2022, employees of NSW Health entities (which includes the Local Health Districts and Specially Networks) who were members of The New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association (referred to as the defendant or "the Association") went on strike. They did so based on serious concerns about pay and workplace conditions. The defendant, which has existed as an industrial association registered under New South Wales law since 1931, has never previously been found to have contravened a dispute order.
In the lead up to both those strikes, the prosecutor, the Secretary of the Ministry of Health (referred to as the prosecutor or "the Secretary"), notified the Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") of an industrial dispute and then sought dispute orders. On 14 February and 25 March 2022, the Commission made dispute orders ("the February Orders" and "the March Orders", respectively) under ss 136(1)(c) and 137(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) ("the Act" or "the NSW Act"). The Commission ordered the defendant, its officers, employees, agents and members employed in NSW Health entities to, amongst other things, "immediately cease organising and refrain from taking any form of industrial action".
When those orders were made, the Commission gave no reasons for its decision. In this judgment, I have concluded that the February Orders were a nullity because the Commission did not address a substantial component of the defendant's case against the making of those orders. Although I have found that the Commission committed an error of law in the making of the March Orders, those orders were not infected by jurisdictional error.
By an Amended Summons filed in Court on 12 July 2022, the prosecutor sought the imposition of monetary penalties against the defendant under ss 139(3)(e) and (4) of the Act. As the February Orders were infected by jurisdictional error, they were only purported orders in fact, not valid orders in law. Accordingly, there can be no contravention by the defendant. The Amended Summons must be dismissed with respect to the alleged contraventions of the February Orders.

[3]

The Industrial Relations Commission

Chapter 4 of the Act establishes the Industrial Relations Commission and sets out its functions, membership, organisation, procedure and powers, including appeals from the Commission's decisions.
The general functions of the Commission are set out in s 146 of the Act as follows: (1) The Commission has the following functions - (a) setting remuneration and other conditions of employment, (b) resolving industrial disputes, (c) hearing and determining other industrial matters, (d) inquiring into, and reporting on, any industrial or other matter referred to it by the Minister, (e) functions conferred on it by this or any other Act or law. (2) The Commission must take into account the public interest in the exercise of its functions and, for that purpose, must have regard to - (a) the objects of this Act, and (b) the state of the economy of New South Wales and the likely effect of its decisions on that economy.
The Commission may determine its own procedure subject to the Act: s 162(1). Some of the powers of the Commission are set out in s 162(2) of the Act as follows: (2) The Commission - (a) is to act as quickly as is practicable, and (b) is to conduct its proceedings publicly or, if it considers it necessary, privately, and (c) may require the presentation of the respective cases of the parties before it to be limited to the periods of time that it determines are reasonably necessary for the fair and adequate presentation of the cases, and (d) may require evidence or argument to be presented in writing and decide on the matters on which it will hear oral evidence or argument, and (e) may sit at any place, and (f) may require a document to be served outside the State, and (g) may adjourn proceedings to any time and place (including for the purpose of enabling the parties to negotiate a settlement), and (h) may dismiss at any stage any proceedings before it if it considers the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious, and (i) may exercise, on its own initiative, any function exercisable by it on application, and (j) may, on its own initiative, inquire into any industrial matter.
As presently constituted, the members of the Commission are the Chief Commissioner and Commissioners appointed by the Governor: ss 147, 148. The Commission is usually constituted by a single member: s 155(1)(a).
The Act provides a wide range of mechanisms to address issues contained within awards and industrial instruments. The Commission may make an award in accordance with the Act setting out fair and reasonable conditions of employment for employees: s 10. Awards may be varied or rescinded in certain circumstances: s 17. Awards must also be reviewed "to modernise awards, to consolidate awards relating to the same industry and to rescind obsolete awards": s 19.
The meaning of "setting fair and reasonable conditions of employment for employees" in s 10 of the Act was explained by the Full Bench (Walton J, President, Commissioners Stanton and Newall) in City of Sydney Wages/Salary Award 2014 (2014) 247 IR 386; [2014] NSWIRComm 49 ("City of Sydney Award") at 390-391 [19]-[22]: [19] The terms 'fair' and 'reasonable' in s 10 of the Act import a requirement that the conditions of employment set represent a proper and proportionate balance between the entitlements afforded employees and the interests of those employing them. [20] Consideration of what is fair and reasonable for an employee will necessarily involve a consideration of what is fair and reasonable having regard to the nature and circumstances of the employment afforded to the employee by an employer. That inquiry cannot be made in a vacuum. It must also extend to the broader context in which the employment occurs and ultimately, by effect of s 146 of the Act, the state of the economy in New South Wales. [21] The assessment required by s 10 will often involve consideration of collective relations between unions and employers or employer associations and, in appropriate cases, consideration of the history of terms and conditions that the parties chose to apply, formally and informally, to employees who will now be covered by the proposed award. [22] In particular cases, the Commission may be required to take into account not only differences between employers or industries in which employment is undertaken, but relevant differences between employees or classes of employees in a workplace, enterprise, project or industry. What may represent a fair and reasonable condition for one set of employees may not be for another, even where the employees are engaged by the same employer. That particular assessment may depend on the history as well as consideration of the present circumstances of the work to be performed.
The Commission has over the years developed Wage Fixing Principles, which provide guidance as to the making or variation of awards. The most recent set of principles were enunciated in State Wage Case 2022 [2022] NSWIRComm 1081 (Chief Commissioner Constant, Commissioner Sloan and Commissioner Webster). These principles, which have their origin in the State Wage Case 1983 (1983) 5 IR 1, continue to play an important role for the Commission's work.
However, in recent years, the powers of the Commission have been constrained to a considerable extent. The effect of s 146C(7) of the Act is that the award-making powers of the Commission are constrained by that section and any policy declared in a regulation which the Commission is required to give effect to: The Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated (NSW) v Director of Public Employment (2012) 250 CLR 343; [2012] HCA 58 at [17] (French CJ) and [58] (Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ, as Kiefel CJ then was). The policy can be found in the Industrial Relations (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Regulation 2014 (NSW) ("the Regulation").
In relation to public sector employees, they may only be awarded increases in remuneration or other conditions of employment if employee-related costs in respect of those employees are not increased by more than 2.5% per annum (or 3% per annum for the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 financial years) as a result of the increases awarded: cls 6 and 6A of the Regulation. In doing so, it is necessary for the Commission to take into account increases in superannuation contributions: Secretary for The Treasury v Public Service Association & Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of NSW (2014) 89 NSWLR 688; [2014] NSWCA 138 at 699 [38] (Bathurst CJ, with whom Beazley P, as Her Excellency then was, and Meagher JA agreed).
Increases beyond the prescribed percentage can "only" be made "if sufficient employee-related cost savings have been achieved to fully offset the increased employee-related costs beyond 2.5% per annum". This is a high bar. It is noted that "whole of government savings" would not constitute "employee-related cost savings" because, to do so, would be contrary to the purpose of s 146C as a "fiscal restraint": Re Crown Employees (Correctional Officers, Department of Corrective Services) Award 2007 for Kempsey, Dillwynia and Wellington Correctional Centres (2014) 248 IR 145; [2014] NSWIRComm 44 at 166-168 [62]-[63] (Walton J, President, Staff J and Commissioner Tabbaa) ("Re Correctional Officers").
However, it is not an insurmountable hurdle. For example, in Re Operational Ambulance Officers (State) Award (No 4) (2016) 255 IR 193; [2016] NSWIRComm 2 ("Re Ambulance Award"), the Full Bench (Walton J, President, Kite AJ and Commissioner Tabbaa) found that the value of overtime savings generated by new rostering arrangements could offset the increase above 2.5% per annum in employee-related costs that resulted from the creation of a new employment classification of "Critical Care Paramedic (Aeromedical)" with higher pay: at 221-222 [116]-[117]. Nevertheless, as I observed earlier this year, the Commission's power is "highly circumscribed" by s 146C of the Act and the government's policy promulgated by the Regulation: Secretary NSW Department of Education v The Australian Education Union New South Wales Teachers Federation Branch [2022] NSWSC 263 at [29] (Walton J) ("Education Secretary v AEU [2022]").
An appeal against a decision of the Commission constituted by a single member lies to the Full Bench, which is to consist of at least three members: ss 155(1)(b), 156(1), 187(1). An appeal brought pursuant to Ch 4 Pt 7 of the Act requires leave of the Full Bench unless made by the Minister: ss 188(1), (4). The Full Bench is to grant leave to appeal "if, in its opinion, the matter is of such importance that, in the public interest, leave should be granted": s 188(2).
The requirement for leave to appeal and the Parliament's intent can be seen by the very comprehensive second reading speech by the then-Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon Jeffrey W Shaw QC (later a Judge of this Court), for the Industrial Relations Bill 1995 (NSW) ("the 1995 Bill"). The speech (New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 23 November 1995 at pages 3852-3853) relevantly stated as follows: The system of appeals under the [Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW) (repealed)] has given rise to excessive and, oftentimes, unwarranted litigation. The provisions concerning appeals have been revised in a number of key respects with particular emphasis on avoiding such problems. Under these provisions, appeals may be made against any decision of the commission whether made as a result of contested proceeding or made by consent, and - subject to discretionary extension - are to be made within 21 days. … Appeals to the full bench may be made only by leave; and the bill ensures that stand-alone "leave to appeal" hearings may be heard separately from the overall merits of any appeal. Likewise, the bill specifically permits the full bench to delegate certain functions to a single member. These provisions have the aims of reducing any backlog in the hearing of appeals, and filtering out insubstantial or unmeritorious appeals. The nature of an appeal must ultimately depend on the statute under which the appeal is authorised. As the proper construction of the appeal provisions in the 1991 Act has been the subject of differing interpretations, it is the Government's intention to resolve the legislative ambiguity concerning appeal principles. The appeal provisions within the bill have been redrafted to provide clear legislative direction concerning the principles to be applied by full benches when considering appeals against discretionary decisions of single members. The approach adopted by the High Court of Australia in judgments such as Mace v Murray - (1958) 92 CLR 370 - and House v The King - (1936) 55 CLR 499 - commends itself as the appropriate principle to apply in appeals against decisions involving an exercise of discretion, which we would regard as including decisions concerning wages and conditions of employment, and unfair dismissals. The approach endorsed in the bill is that an appellate bench is not justified in interfering with the decision at first instance, except in limited circumstances where the appellate bench reaches a clear conclusion that, by reason of some error, whether of fact or law, the primary tribunal not only has taken a view different from that which the members of the appeal tribunal would have taken, but has failed to exercise properly the discretion committed to it. These appeal principles are intended to apply even in the comparatively isolated circumstances where additional evidence is received by the appellate bench: there is no intention to have two types of appeals and differing approaches to the nature of the appeal principles depending on whether additional matters are adduced. Last, unless such an approach was otherwise inconsistent with an express statutory provision, it is intended that the general appeal principles I have outlined should also apply to decisions made by the Chief Industrial Magistrate.
For completeness, I note that the 1995 Bill lapsed when the Parliament was prorogued and was re-introduced in nearly identical terms as the Industrial Relations Bill 1996 (NSW) ("the 1996 Bill"), which later became the Act: see New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 17 April 1996 at page 82 (The Hon Jeffrey W Shaw QC). Nothing turns on this technicality. The second reading speech of the 1995 Bill, when read with the additional remarks of the second reading speech of the 1996 Bill, may be considered in determining Parliament's intent and the meaning of statutory provisions: Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 34 ("Interpretation Act").
Generally, the Full Bench is likely to grant leave where the issues in the appeal are of some novelty, raise substantial issues of law and principle, and have implications for the wider jurisprudence of the Commission. The proper principles can be summarised as follows: 1. It must be remembered that s 191 of the Act provides that an appeal to the Full Bench is an appeal in the strict sense: King v State Bank of New South Wales (No 2) (2002) 126 IR 407; [2002] NSWIRComm 353 at 427 [64] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Kavanagh J); Justice Margaret J Beazley (as Her Excellency then was), Paul T Vout and Sally E Fitzgerald, Appeals and Appellate Courts in Australia and New Zealand (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2014) at 450-452 [10.47]. Therefore, the Full Bench should only intervene to correct error and it is not enough that the appellate tribunal would have come to a different view: Aboud v State of New South Wales (Department of School Education) (1999) 92 IR 32; [1999] NSWIRComm 449 at 42-43 (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Schmidt J); Ace Business Brokers Pty Ltd v Phillips-Treby (2000) 100 IR 420 at 428 (Wright J, President, Glynn and Hungerford JJ); Strathfield Group Ltd v Hall (2002) 121 IR 158; [2002] NSWIRComm 373 at 169 [45] (Wright J, President, Peterson and Kavanagh JJ). The Full Bench should not substitute its own views as to a decision that was reasonably open at first instance: Antonakopoulos v State Bank of NSW (1999) 91 IR 385 at 392 (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Commissioner Redman). 2. Leave will not be lightly or automatically granted: Perrott v XcelleNet Australia Ltd (1998) 84 IR 255 at 265 (Hungerford, Peterson and Schmidt JJ). This is because the statutory scheme makes clear that the legislature intended that the Full Bench would filter appeals by granting leave to only those cases meeting the public interest test stated in s 188(2). The raising of a jurisdictional issue by an appellant does not, of itself, establish a basis for the grant of leave. Each case has to be judged against the statutory criterion. When leave to appeal is sought in relation to a jurisdictional issue, the Commission should have regard to whether there is a demonstrable case that the Commission has exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction: Knowles v Anglican Church Property Trust (No 2) (1999) 95 IR 380 at 381-382 (Walton J, Vice-President, Glynn J and Commissioner Patterson) ("Knowles v Anglican Church"). 3. It must be emphasised that the extent to which errors, whether jurisdictional or not, be ultimately established is not a matter to be finally determined on the question of leave but only on a full hearing of the appeal. Leave to appeal is attracted if the Full Bench is satisfied that the appeal raises "serious issues to be tested, are reasonably arguable and are of a nature proper to attract leave to appeal": Burge v NSW BHP Steel Pty Ltd (2001) 105 IR 325; [2001] NSWIRComm 117 at 326 [4] (Walton J, Vice-President, Hungerford J and Commissioner Bishop). 4. It is relevant to consider whether the appeal raises issues going to the proper administration of justice: Humphries v Cootamundra Ex Services and Citizens Memorial Club Ltd (2003) 128 IR 37; [2003] NSWIRComm 211 at 53 [77] (Walton J, Vice-President, Deputy President Harrison and Commissioner O'Neill). 5. Leave would ordinarily, in the absence of changed circumstances, be refused where an appellant raises arguments or presses issues on the appeal which were not squarely raised at first instance: Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd v Harmer (1999) 92 IR 264 at 269 (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Hungerford J). This is not to say that the admission of new evidence per se would have this result, but that the bringing of, in substance, a new or materially different case on appeal may constitute a basis for the refusal of an application for leave to appeal. 6. Mere contest as to findings of fact which might otherwise remain open on the evidence will generally, in the absence of other considerations, not attract leave: Box Valley Pty Ltd v Price (2000) 97 IR 484 at 484 [4] (Walton J, Vice-President, Hungerford J and Commissioner Cambridge). It must be kept in mind that the Full Bench should not interfere with findings of fact unless the Full Bench is of the opinion that they were not reasonably open on the evidence: Hussmann Australia Pty Ltd v Walker (1993) 31 NSWLR 189 at 201 (Hill J).
Consistent with the second reading speech, in exercising its powers under s 192 of the Act, the Full Bench must identify a "House v The King error" (that is, an error that falls within one of the grounds contained in the oft-cited passage in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 by Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ at 504-505) at least in relation to discretionary decisions: TD Preece & Co Pty Ltd v Industrial Court (NSW) (2008) 177 IR 172; [2008] NSWCA 285 at 187 [77] (Basten JA); Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union (NSW) v Secretary of the Treasury (2014) 242 IR 318; [2014] NSWCA 112 at 326 [27] (Basten JA with whom Ward JA, as her Honour then was, and Bergin CJ in Eq agreeing) ("PSA v Treasury Secretary [2014]"); Public Service Association and Professional Officers Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales v Roads and Maritime Services (2015) 250 IR 412; [2015] NSWIRComm 16 at 416 [10] (Walton J, President, Kite AJ and Commissioner Newall).

[4]

Conciliation and Arbitration of Industrial Disputes

Chapter 3 of the Act is titled "Industrial disputes" and sets out a procedure for the Commission to conciliate and arbitrate industrial disputes that arise within its jurisdiction. The Dictionary to the Act defines "industrial action" and "industrial dispute" in the following terms: industrial action means a strike by employees or a lock-out by an employer, and includes - (a) a practice relating to the performance of work, adopted in connection with an industrial dispute, that restricts, limits or delays the performance of work, or (b) a ban, limitation or restriction affecting the performance of work, or the offering or acceptance of work, that is adopted in connection with an industrial dispute, or (c) any failure or refusal in connection with an industrial dispute to attend for work or to perform work, but does not include any action taken by employees with the agreement of their employer or any action taken by employers with the agreement of their employees. industrial dispute means a dispute (including a question or difficulty) about an industrial matter, and includes the following: (a) a demarcation dispute, (b) a threatened or likely industrial dispute, (c) a situation that is likely to give rise to an industrial dispute if preventative action is not taken.
Section 130(1) of the Act allows certain bodies, including an employer and industrial organisation, but not individual employees, to notify the Commission of an industrial dispute. Alternatively, the Commission itself may act on its own initiative to resolve an industrial dispute: s 130(2).
The Commission has the power to convene a compulsory conference: s 131(1). To facilitate the effective resolution of a dispute, the Commission may require the attendance of any person whose presence the Commission considers would help in its resolution: s 132(1). Alternatively, the Commission may confer with a person without requiring their attendance: s 132(3).
Section 133 of the Act requires that the Commission "must first attempt to resolve an industrial dispute by conciliation". In doing so, the Commission is under a statutory command "to do everything that seems to be proper to assist the parties to agree on terms for the resolution of the dispute": s 134(1). The Commission may make recommendations or give directions: s 134(2). This includes making recommendations or giving directions to the parties to bargain in good faith: s 134(4). The Commission can make arrangements or give directions to convene and conduct conferences with the parties: s 134(3).
Sometimes, conciliation will resolve an industrial dispute. Other times, it may not. Only if an industrial dispute is not resolved by conciliation may the Commission deal with the dispute by arbitration: s 135(1). Before arbitration, the Commission must issue a certificate of attempted conciliation: s 135(2). A certificate is should not be lightly issued because they signal a failure of the primary dispute settling mechanism under the Act. Before a certificate is issued the relevant party must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to whether a direction or recommendation under s 134(2) of the Act should be taken into account: NSW Teachers' Federation v NSW Department of Education and Training (2000) 100 IR 441; [2000] NSWIRComm 169 at 445 [15] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Commissioner Connor).
Conciliation (or, more aptly, its failure) is, therefore, the "jurisdictional prerequisite" to the exercise of any powers by the Commission in arbitral proceedings: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (NSW) v Newcrest Mining Ltd (2005) 139 IR 50; [2005] NSWIRComm 23 at 57 [20] (Walton J, Vice-President, Boland J, as his Honour then was, and Staff J). The Act discusses the interplay between the issuing of a certificate and industrial action in two provisions: 1. The Commission must consider the effect that any industrial action in connection with the industrial dispute is having on the parties and public generally: s 135(4); and 2. The Commission "must…without delay" issue a certificate if the Commission decides that industrial action or duress necessitates the exercise of its arbitral power: s 135(7).
In Education Secretary v AEU [2022], I outlined the aspects of s 135 of the Act at [48] as follows: (1) The mechanism of the issuing of a certificate ensures that reasonable attempts have been made to resolve the industrial dispute by conciliation (see s 135(2) and (6)) and that there is a clear distinction drawn between conciliation and arbitration (see ss 135 (1), (2), (3), (8) and (9)). (2) The determination to issue a certificate lies in the discretion of the Commission. The exercise of that discretion is guided by what the Commission considers constitutes "reasonable attempts". That assessment will undoubtedly be informed by issues such as the complexity of the industrial dispute and the effect of any actual or anticipated industrial action on "the parties" (see s 135(4)) and the public generally (s 135(4)). (3) An application for a certificate may be made by any person authorised to notify the Commission of a dispute which includes any entity referred to in s 135(6). (4) Copies of the certificate are to be issued to "the parties" and the "Chief Commissioner.
In arbitration proceedings, the Commission has a broad range of powers under s 136 of the Act. That section states: 136 Arbitration of dispute (1) The Commission may, in arbitration proceedings, do any one or more of the following: (a) make a recommendation or give a direction to the parties to the industrial dispute, (b) make or vary an award under Part 1 of Chapter 2, (c) make a dispute order under Part 2, (d) make any other kind of order it is authorised to make (including an order made on an interim basis). (2) Any such action may be taken by the Commission on its own initiative or on application by any person authorised to notify the Commission of the industrial dispute.
With respect to a dispute order in s 136(1)(c) of the Act, ss 137 and 138 of the Act provide as follows: 137 Kinds of dispute orders (1) The Commission may make the following kinds of dispute orders when dealing with an industrial dispute in arbitration proceedings - (a) The Commission may order a person to cease or refrain from taking industrial action. (b) The Commission may order an employer to reinstate or re-employ any one or more employees who were dismissed in the course of the industrial dispute or whose dismissal resulted in the industrial dispute. (c) The Commission may order an employer not to dismiss employees in the course of the industrial dispute if the employer has threatened to do so. (d) The Commission may order a person to cease a secondary boycott imposed in connection with the industrial dispute. (2) If employees are taking industrial action in connection with the industrial dispute, the Commission may order the employees to cease taking that industrial action before it makes any other kind of dispute order against the employer. (3) A dispute order may not provide for the payment of compensation, lost remuneration or any other amount. 138 Making of dispute orders (1) A dispute order may be made only against - (a) a party or likely party to the industrial dispute, or (b) a member, officer or employee of an industrial organisation that is such a party or likely party, or (c) a person engaged, or likely to be engaged, in a secondary boycott in connection with the industrial dispute. (2) A dispute order - (a) must clearly identify the persons against whom the order is made and who are bound by the order, and (b) must state a time within which the order is to be complied with or state a period during which it remains in force, and (c) may be varied or revoked by the Commission at any time. (3) If an employee is reinstated or re-employed under this Part, the Commission may order that the period of employment of the employee with the employer is taken not to have been broken by the dismissal.
The second reading speech of the 1995 Bill (New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 23 November 1995 at pages 3850-3851 (The Hon Jeffrey W Shaw QC)) relevantly stated as follows: The process is simple: if consultation at the workplace proves futile, employers and unions will be encouraged to use the expertise of the commission in the resolution of their differences, first by conciliation, and with arbitration available as required. At all stages throughout this process the parties will be held accountable for their conduct. To detail this process further, initially the commission must deal with all industrial disputes by conciliation. When attempting conciliation, the commission is empowered to do everything it considers proper to assist the parties to resolve the dispute, including arranging for compulsory conferences. Consistent with addressing concerns raised in the review process, the paper work needed to bring a dispute before the commission will be vastly simplified. … [The Commission] may use any or all of the following devices: continue conciliation; make recommendations or directions; make or vary awards; make dispute orders; and make any other kind of order it is authorised to make, including orders on an interim basis. It dispenses with the artificial and academic constraints of the "interests/rights" dichotomy, and truly focuses on ensuring the resolution of disputes in a prompt and fair manner with the minimum of legal technicality. The legislation recognises that an essential part of the powers which should be available to the commission to resolve disputes is the ability to direct the actions of the parties.
It is clear that the Act makes the Commission the principal organ to assist with the resolution of industrial disputes. It is also clear that Parliament intended for industrial disputes to be resolved by negotiation between the parties themselves or conciliation with the assistance of the Commission (following notification under s 130). This is evidenced by the fact that the Commission's arbitral powers are not enlivened unless the Commission is satisfied that "there is no reasonable likelihood that the dispute will be resolved by conciliation": s 135(6). To facilitate effective conciliation, Parliament conferred broad and significant powers on the Commission to require attendance of people, make recommendations and directions, and to facilitate conferences between the parties. This is so that the Commission is well placed to assist parties in resolving their disputes by conciliation.
In Fire & Rescue NSW on behalf of the Department of Premier and Cabinet v Fire Brigade Employees' Union of New South Wales (2013) 235 IR 261; [2013] NSWIRComm 63 ("FRNSW v FBEU [2013]"), the Full Bench (Boland J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Staff J) explained at 273-274 [46] that: The conciliation process is not so much about making judgments about the rights and wrongs of industrial action; rather it is principally designed to focus on the issues in dispute and to bring about a quick, fair and just resolution of those issues by agreement or upon the basis of the Commission's non-binding recommendation or direction and with a minimum of legal technicality. If successful, it would follow any industrial action would cease.
It is in this context that the industrial relations system in New South Wales, the powers of the Commission and, most relevantly, the nature of dispute orders, must be understood.

[5]

Dispute Orders

It is plain from the above analysis that Parliament intended that the making of dispute orders to be a last resort: Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales [2005] NSWIRComm 260 at [29] (Boland J, as his Honour then was). Accordingly, there is no presumption that, in the face of threatened industrial action, a dispute order will be made: Industrial Relations Secretary v Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales [2022] NSWIRComm 1042 at [23] (Commissioner Sloan) ("Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2022]").
The use of the word "may" in ss 136(1) and 137(1) indicate the discretionary nature of the power to make dispute orders: NSW Department of Education and Training v NSW Teachers Federation; Re Student Reports Bans (2006) 157 IR 329; [2006] NSWIRComm 346 at 336 [36] (Deputy President Harrison) ("Education Department v NSWTF [2006]"). In so doing, the Commission must have regard to the public interest, objects of the Act and the likely effect on the economy of New South Wales: ss 3, 146(2).
It must be remembered that dispute orders are not lightly made by the Commission: City of Botany Bay v Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees' Union of Australia, New South Wales Division [2000] NSWIRComm 85 at [8] (Schmidt J) ("Botany Bay v FMSCEU"); BHP Steel Ltd v The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales (2003) 136 IR 240; [2003] NSWIRComm 423 at 261 [88] (Haylen J) ("BHP v AWU [2003] NSWIRComm 423").
In Sydney Water Corporation v Australian Services Union (NSW and ACT Branch) (2005) 146 IR 388; [2005] NSWIRComm 305 ("Sydney Water v ASU"), the Full Bench (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President and Commissioner Stanton) stated at 403-404 [37] that, in furthering the objects of the Act, "it is vital that the Commission recognise the broad discretion granted by [the Act] to fashion appropriate relief by reference to the merits of the industrial dispute itself and the steps necessary to resolve it". This involves a variety of considerations, including the "public interest in managing the industrial dispute in a fair and just manner with minimum disruption and disputation". This passage was cited approvingly in BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales (2006) 153 IR 176; [2006] NSWIRComm 149 at [24]-[26] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Marks J) ("BlueScope v AWU [2006] NSWIRComm 149") and Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales v Industrial Relations Secretary (2018) 96 NSWLR 762; [2018] NSWCA 39 at 791 [128] (Bathurst CJ with whom Gleeson and Simpson JJA agreed) ("PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018]").
This observation is consistent with the view expressed by the Marks J in Director General, NSW Department of Education and Training and the Managing Director of TAFE v NSW Teachers Federation [2010] NSWIRComm 77 ("Education Director-General v NSWTF [2010] NSWIRComm 77") at [14]-[15]: [14] However, it is also necessary to make reference to one additional matter, namely the context in which dispute orders are made and the part that dispute orders play in the overall regulation of industrial matters in New South Wales. Chapter 3 of the Industrial Relations Act deals with industrial disputes and provides for mandatory conciliation and then arbitration. There is provision in the Act for the enforcement of awards and determinations made by the industrial tribunal. Furthermore, the tribunal is empowered to make dispute orders (s 136) of a kind described in s 137 and subject to conditions set out in s 138. Section 139 empowers this Court to impose a penalty for breach of a dispute order. Accordingly, the regulation of industrial disputes in New South Wales involves the empowerment of a third party umpire to make binding orders on parties which can be enforced through mechanisms established by the State and which include the creation of civil penalties as part of the armoury of measures that may be taken to ensure compliance with and enforcement of awards, orders and determinations. [15] The existence of a system such as that established by the Industrial Relations Act 1996 reflects a sophisticated and civilised approach to dealing with industrial disputation, including differences of opinion which do not necessarily manifest themselves in any industrial action.
I also respectfully agree with the observations of Boland J (as his Honour then was) in Bluescope Steel (AIS) Ltd v Australian Workers' Union (NSW) (2005) 138 IR 324; [2005] NSWIRComm 99 ("BlueScope v AWU [2005] NSWIRComm 99") at [106(1)] where his Honour stated: Dispute orders are rarely made by members of the Commission. Long experience has demonstrated that most matters can be resolved by conciliation and/or arbitration without resorting to the prospect of sanctions. The making of a dispute order is a serious step given the consequences for contravention. Persons against whom a dispute order is made are bound to take it seriously, especially members, officials and employees of organisations who may be putting in jeopardy the very existence of their organisation.
The relevant principles to the exercise of discretion can be seen in the Commission's past decisions.
First, the ability of a union or employer to use the Commission's powers, and whether conciliation and arbitration has been used, is a significant factor that informs the discretionary considerations of the Commission when deciding whether to make dispute orders. In Director General, NSW Department of Health v New South Wales Nurses Association (No 2) [2010] NSWIRComm 163 ("Health Director v NSWNA [2010]"), the President, Boland J, stated at [17]: Nevertheless, it was always open to either party, or the Association in particular, given its frustration in not being able to make progress with the Department, to approach the Commission for assistance, but no approach was made. It is a weak excuse to say that the Department would only maintain its opposition in Commission's proceedings and that is why no application to the Commission was made. It completely overlooks the Commission's extensive conciliation and arbitration powers. It was submitted by counsel for the Association that the Association wanted the nurse/patient ratio dealt with quickly and it seemed to be suggested an arbitration on such a complex issue would be interminably long, citing the Department's alleged penchant for drawn out arbitration proceedings.
In BlueScope v AWU [2006] NSWIRComm 149, the Full Bench (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Marks J) held at 187-188 [26] that: Many industrial disputes have the potential to conflagrate and the Commission's broad discretionary powers - including the power to make orders under s 137(1)(a) - are vital to prevent such a conflagration. The ability, in arbitration, to order industrial action to cease - to enable the parties to resolve the dispute efficiently and fairly under the auspices of the Commission rather than leaving the matter to be determined by the economic and industrial power of the participants without reference to the public interest - is one of the most important features of the system created by the Act.
Secondly, the conduct of the parties in industrial disputes, including whether there has been any good faith bargaining, meaning negotiations and participation in conciliation, is a relevant factor. It is relevant to consider whether there has been compliance of the Commission's previous orders and recommendations: Botany Bay v FMSCEU at [6]-[7] (Schmidt J); Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2022] at [34]-[35] (Commissioner Sloan).
Thirdly, the effect on the economy of New South Wales is a mandatory relevant consideration under s 146(2) of the Act. In FRNSW v FBEU [2013], it was identified that there is a "need to protect the public interest from the damaging effects of industrial action": at 272 [41] (Boland J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Staff J). In this respect, any negative effect on the economy, disruption to the provision of essential services, health and safety risks, and the broader implications for the public should be considered.
Those factors are also relevant in the Commission's award-making context and guidance can be derived from those cases, which also rely on s 146(2) of the Act: see generally Application for Crown Employees (Public Sector - Salaries 2020) Award and Other Matters (No 2) (2020) 301 IR 321; [2020] NSWIRComm 1066 (Chief Commissioner Constant, Commissioners Murphy and Sloan); Crown Employees (Police Officers - 2009) Award (No 2) (2012) 220 IR 192; [2012] NSWIRComm 104 (Walton J, Vice-President, Staff J and Commissioner Tabbaa); Re Health and Community Employees Psychologists (State) Award (2001) 109 IR 458; [2001] NSWIRComm 302 at 479 [52] (Wright J, President, Hungerford J, Deputy President Sams and Commissioner McKenna).
In Re Crown Employees (Teachers in Schools and TAFE and Related Employees) Salaries and Conditions Award (2004) 133 IR 254; [2004] NSWIRComm 114, an enlarged Full Bench (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, Boland J, as his Honour then was, Deputy President Grayson and Commissioner McLeay) explained at 365-366 [432] the treatment of economic considerations in the award-making process as follows: The economic and financial position of the State and the effects of our decision on the New South Wales economy have played a significant role in our decision, but not a determinative one. It is our statutory duty to fix fair and reasonable rates of pay and conditions. In a matter, such as this one, where a compelling basis for increases in rates of pay has been demonstrated, then the Commission must give recognition to that conclusion even though it may temper the final result in recognition of economic considerations. The terms of s 146 of the Act require no more than this, particularly in the light of the paramount requirements of s 10 of the Act.
In the same way, economic factors are not determinative in an application for dispute orders, but they may properly sway or temper whether dispute orders are made and, if made, the extent or reach of those orders.
Fourthly, when considering the consequences of industrial action, the Commission is not limited to only considering economic impacts. The "public interest" is very broad. For example, the public interest can include the effect on primary and secondary school children and their education: see New South Wales Department of Education v New South Wales Teachers Federation (2010) 194 IR 340; [2010] NSWIRComm 55 at 349 [41] (Staff J) ("Education Department v NSWTF [2010]").
Fifthly, any provisions contained in awards about dispute resolution processes are also relevant because it would be inconsistent with the objects of the Act to "turn a blind eye" or disregard terms or obligations under an industrial instrument made under the Act: see, eg, Bluescope Steel Limited (formerly BHP Steel Limited) v The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales (No 2) (2005) 141 IR 329; [2005] NSWIRComm 36 at 330 [4(2)] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Marks J) ("BlueScope (No 2) [2005]"); Transport Secretary v The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales [2022] NSWIRComm 1053 at [9]-[10], [12] (Commissioner Sloan) ("Transport Secretary v AWU"); Health Secretary v New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association [2022] NSWIRComm 1047 at [13]-[14] (Commissioner Sloan) ("Health Secretary v NSWMNA [2022] NSWIRComm 1047"). Legislative and regulatory provisions can also be relevant: Education Department v NSWTF [2010] at 350 [44] (Staff J).
Sixthly, the Commission has discretion to refuse to make dispute orders that are oppressive or would lack any utility. In Education Department v NSWTF [2006], Deputy President Harrison declined to make dispute orders because he was not satisfied that there existed in schools, a capacity to produce certain school reports, or that it was reasonable that they be produced. The Commission found that a dispute order ordering a person to cease or refrain from taking industrial action in those circumstances had an "unacceptable potential to create harsh, onerous and unreasonable working conditions": at 339 [63]. The Commission also stated that it is "reluctant to make orders that cannot be complied with": at 339 [64].
By virtue of ss 130(1)(a), 138(1)(a)-(b), 139(3)(e) and 139(4) of the Act, dispute orders can be made against an industrial organisation: PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] at 788 [117] (Bathurst CJ with whom Gleeson and Simpson JJA agreed). In that decision, Bathurst CJ discussed the meaning of the words "cease or refrain from taking industrial action" in s 137(1)(a) at 788 [115] as follows: That construction certainly has textual support. First, the dispute orders which the Commission may make under s 137(1)(a) are orders to "cease or refrain from taking industrial action". In common parlance, "cease" means "stop", whilst "refrain" means "not take". Read with the definition of "industrial action", the section would then mean that the Commission could make an order to "stop or not take strike action", including the activities referred to in pars (a), (b) and (c) of the definition of "industrial action".
Schmidt J has expressed doubt, albeit not a concluded view, that dispute orders could be made on an interlocutory or interim basis: Notification under section 130 by the NSW Department of Community Services of a dispute with the Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales; Re Workbans [2000] NSWIRComm 66 at [11]. That case concerned an application for such orders that arose following the adjournment of arbitration proceedings for the gathering of evidence and preparation. It is not necessary to express a concluded view on this issue in this case.
In Industrial Relations Secretary v Public Service Association and Professional Officers Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales (2017) 93 NSWLR 723; [2017] NSWSC 71 ("Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2017]"), Fagan J held that this Court would not find a contravention of an order in proceedings under s 139 of the Act without being satisfied that "the relevant order was made in terms of sufficient clarity, without ambiguity, so that allegedly infringing conduct can clearly be seen to be in breach of something that the [defendant] was directed not to do": at 728 [29].
In Transport Workers' Union of Australia, New South Wales Branch v Chubb Security Services Ltd [2001] NSWIRComm 248, the Full Bench (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Commissioner Patterson) held at [11] that "[i]t is essential that orders made under s 137 be in clear terms and in terms readily understood and capable of being obeyed by those against whom they are made". In that case, the union, its officers, employees, members and agents were ordered to refrain from imposing any bans, limitations or restrictions on the performance of work at or in relation to the premises of Chubb Security Services Ltd at nominated premises. A second order was in the following terms: The TWU and its officers, employees and agents, shall take all necessary steps to ensure the continuation of work by their members employed at or in relation to the premises of Chubb in accordance with their contracts of employment and the lawful instructions of Chubb.
The Full Bench, on an appeal brought by the union, held at [10]: We do not consider there was power to make order no 2, nor could it be justified as being an order of a kind specified in the grant of power provided by [s 137(1)(a) of the Act]. Further, the order, when construed, could not be said to be an order ancillary to or in aid of order 1, particularly having regard to the fact that order 1 was an order to refrain from taking industrial action. Accordingly, there was no power to make the order and it should be set aside.
The prosecutor correctly submitted that an appeal can lie to the Full Bench against a decision by a single Commissioner to make (or not make) dispute orders but such an appeal requires leave under s 188 of the Act unless made by the Minister: see, eg, BlueScope v AWU [2006] NSWIRComm 149 (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Marks J); National Union of Workers, New South Wales Branch and Ors v TNT Australia Pty Ltd and Franklins Limited (unreported, Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales, IRC 4188 of 1997, 3 September 1997) (Fisher P, Bauer and Hungerford JJ and Commissioner Buckley) ("NUW v TNT"); Secretary of the Department of Education v Australian Education Union of New South Wales Teachers Federation Branch [2022] NSWIRComm 1049 at [6] (Chief Commissioner Constant, Commissioners Sloan and Webster) ("Education Secretary v NSWTF [2022] NSWIRComm 1049").
In granting leave against a decision to make dispute orders, I agree with the observations of Fisher P, Bauer and Hungerford JJ and Commissioner Buckley in NUW v TNT that there is a further, but not dispositive, consideration as follows: We are satisfied that the public interest, often referred to as the silent party, requires industrial disputes to be so dealt with in a timely and orderly way free from the use of industrial force, whether it be by employer or employee. In our view, it is of critical importance to have that approach in mind in determining whether leave to appeal should be granted to set aside a dispute order made by the Commission and specifically directed at the cessation of industrial action to permit parties to settle their differences by conciliation, or, if necessary, for the Commission to arbitrate.

[6]

Alleged Contraventions of Dispute Orders

If there is an alleged contravention of a dispute order, s 139 of the Act provides that the matter can be dealt with by this Court. Section 139 provides as follows: 139 Contravention of dispute order (1) The Supreme Court, on application, must deal expeditiously with an alleged contravention of a dispute order. The application may be made by the person who applied for the order or any other person who was authorised to apply for the order. (2) Before dealing with an alleged contravention of the order, the Supreme Court is required to summon the person alleged to have contravened the order to show cause why the Supreme Court should not take action for the contravention. (3) The Supreme Court may, after hearing any person who answered the summons to show cause and considering any other relevant matter, do any one or more of the following - (a) dismiss the matter if it finds that the dispute order was not contravened or if it finds that the circumstances were such that the Supreme Court should take no action on the contravention, (b) cancel the approval of an enterprise agreement, (c) suspend or modify for any period all or any of the entitlements under an industrial instrument, (d) cancel the registration of an industrial organisation or take any other action authorised by Division 2 of Part 3 of Chapter 5, (e) impose a penalty on an industrial organisation or an employer as provided by subsection (4), (f) make any other determination that the Supreme Court considers would help in resolving the industrial dispute. (4) The maximum penalty that may be imposed on an industrial organisation or employer is - (a) except as provided by paragraph (b) - a penalty not exceeding in total $10,000 for the first day the contravention occurs and an additional $5,000 for each subsequent day on which the contravention continues, or (b) if a penalty has previously been imposed on the industrial organisation or employer for a contravention of an earlier dispute order - a penalty not exceeding in total $20,000 for the first day the contravention occurs and an additional $10,000 for each subsequent day on which the contravention continues. (5) Any such penalty may be recovered in the same way as a penalty imposed by the Supreme Court for an offence against this Act.
Reference should also be made to s 355E(2) of the Act, which provides: (2) Unless it determines that it is not appropriate to do so, the Supreme Court must take into account the public interest in the exercise of its functions in industrial proceedings and, for that purpose, must have regard to - (a) the objects of this Act, and (b) the state of the economy of New South Wales and the likely effect of its decisions on that economy.
The operation of s 139 was outlined by Marks J in Franklins Ltd v National Union of Workers (NSW Branch) (1997) 78 IR 289 ("Franklins v NUW") at 292 as follows: I observe by way of preliminary comment that s 139 seems intended to operate in the following manner: 1. There must be an application before the Commission. 2. That application must allege a contravention of a dispute order. 3. A dispute order is an order of the kind referred to in s 137 of the Act. 4. The application may be made by the person who applied for the dispute order ''or any other person who was authorised to apply for the order''. 5. Once the application has been made, the Commission must deal with it expeditiously. 6. Prior to dealing with the alleged contravention of the dispute order, the person alleged to have contravened the order must be summoned by the [Court] to show cause why the [Court] should not take action for that contravention.
In BHP Steel Ltd v The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales [2003] NSWIRComm 151 ("BHP v AWU [2003] NSWIRComm 151"), Haylen J held, correctly in my view, that contravention proceedings under s 139 of the Act are not criminal proceedings and that the civil onus of proof applies: at [99].
Two early decisions - Coles Supermarket (Australia) Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers (NSW Branch) [1997] NSWIRComm 24 (Cahill J, Vice-President) and Director-General, Department of Education and Training v NSW Teachers' Federation [2000] NSWIRComm 17 (Marks J) ("Education Director-General v NSWTF [2000] NSWIRComm 17") - appear to support the view that proceedings under s 139 of the Act are criminal in nature. With respect, those decisions are contrary to numerous later decisions of the Industrial Court, the Full Bench, this Court and the Court of Appeal, including PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] at 774 [51] (Bathurst CJ with whom Gleeson and Simpson JJA agreed). To the extent necessary, those decisions should be overruled for the reasons given by Haylen J in BHP v AWU [2003] NSWIRComm 151.
I agree with the President, Boland J, in Secretary of the Treasury v Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union (NSW) (No 2) (2013) 231 IR 349; [2013] NSWIRComm 25 ("Treasury Secretary v PSA [2013]") at 360 [55] that "[t]he penalty under the Act for contravention of a dispute order is a civil penalty". Civil penalties have been broadly defined as "punitive sanctions that are imposed otherwise than through the normal criminal process": Michael Gillooly and Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, "Civil Penalties in Australian Legislation" (1994) 13(2) University of Tasmania Law Review 269 at 269-270.
In applications under s 139 of the Act, the defendant stands in jeopardy of having penalties imposed on it or other orders made against it if the pleaded contraventions are established. There are four relevant principles that apply to considering the pleaded contraventions.
First, as to the issue of proof, the prosecutor must prove its case on the balance of probabilities: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 140. I accept the decision of Haylen J in BHP v AWU [2003] NSWIRComm 151 that, in making factual findings, I should adopt the principles enunciated in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 ("Briginshaw"): see also Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Hall (2018) 261 FCR 347; [2018] FCAFC 83 at 380 [100] (Tracey, Reeves and Bromwich JJ) ("ABCC v Hall"). This is particularly so given that one of the possible consequences for an industrial organisation that is found to have contravened a dispute order may be cancellation of its registration, namely, its very existence as an entity for the purposes of the Act is extinguished. Thus, "inexact proofs, indefinite testimony and indirect inferences" will not be sufficient to make out a case in a matter of this seriousness: Briginshaw at 362 (Dixon J).
In Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170 at 170-171, Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ stated: The ordinary standard of proof required of a party who bears the onus in civil litigation in this country is proof on the balance of probabilities. That remains so even where the matter to be proved involves criminal conduct or fraud. On the other hand, the strength of the evidence necessary to establish a fact or facts on the balance of probabilities may vary according to the nature of what it is sought to prove. Thus, authoritative statements have often been made to the effect that clear or cogent or strict proof is necessary "where so serious a matter as fraud is to be found". Statements to that effect should not, however, be understood as directed to the standard of proof. Rather, they should be understood as merely reflecting a conventional perception that members of our society do not ordinarily engage in fraudulent or criminal conduct and a judicial approach that a court should not lightly make a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, a party to civil litigation has been guilty of such conduct.
Secondly, the prosecutor is required to particularise their case and the material facts on which they rely to establish the alleged contravention with clarity and precision. In ABCC v Hall, which was a case dealing with civil penalty provisions, Tracey, Reeves and Bromwich JJ stated at 356 [19]: This means that, in a proceeding such as the present one, which was conducted on pleadings, an applicant is required to plead his or her statement of claim all the material facts concerning the contraventions alleged against the respondent. As French J said in Kernel Holdings Pty Ltd v Rothmans of Pall Mall (Australia) Pty Ltd (1991) 217 ALR 171 at 173, [a] material fact is one which is necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. ... Material facts must be pleaded with the degree of specificity necessary to define the issues and inform the parties in advance of the case they have to meet.
Thirdly, to the extent that the defendant accepts that it is liable in relation to certain of the contraventions alleged, that acceptance of liability carries with it an admission of the elements of the contravention admitted: Education Secretary v AEU at [252] (Walton J).
Fourthly, it has also been held that a court, in contravention proceedings, should not imply terms into dispute orders which are not expressly stated in the order itself: BHP v AWU [2003] NSWIRComm 423 at 261 [88] (Haylen J).
In my view, the purpose of contravention proceedings under s 139 of the Act is to further the system of conciliation and arbitration in the Commission. This is because a central and significant factor in the making of dispute orders is that parties have not used the legitimate means within the Act to address industrial disputes in good faith. This is also clear from the place of s 139 within Ch 3 of the Act, which is titled "Industrial disputes". Thus, the purpose of s 139 of the Act is not to prevent or punish legitimate industrial action but rather to facilitate and uphold the statutory scheme provided by the Act, which as discussed above, emphasises the use of conciliation and, if conciliation does not bear fruit, arbitration. In this respect, this Court should be mindful, when deciding what action to take under s 139(3) of the Act, to help resolve the industrial dispute if it remains live and is ongoing.
It is also the purpose of contravention proceedings to "punish disobedience of an order of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales" and "vindicate the authority of the Commission which is an integral and essential component of the industrial relations system in the State of New South Wales": Director-General, Department of Education and Training v New South Wales Teachers' Federation [2000] NSWIRComm 103 at [7] (Marks J) ("Education Director-General v NSWTF [2000] NSWIRComm 103"). As Fagan J stated, "[i]t is obviously critical to the whole fabric of the system set up under the Industrial Relations Act that lawfully made orders of a Commissioner…be observed rather than explicitly and flagrantly disregarded": Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2017] at 733-734 [49].
I turn to consider s 139(3)(e) of the Act, which gives this Court the power to "impose a penalty on an industrial organisation or an employer". The second reading speech of the 1995 Bill (New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 23 November 1995 at page 3851 (The Hon Jeffrey W Shaw QC)) explains this choice of wording: The legislation provides the commission in court session with a suitable range of powers to deal with contraventions of dispute orders, including powers to impose financial penalties against industrial organisations or employers. It should be noted that the legislation has been drafted to ensure that while individual officials of industrial organisations and workers may be the subject of dispute orders, they cannot be the subject of fines for breach of a dispute order. In the case of officials of industrial organisations, the commission may apply the penalty against the organisation for whom the official is acting. In the case of individual workers other penalties, such as the suspension or modification of entitlements under an award or agreement, are more appropriate and equally sufficient deterrents. [Emphasis added.] For completeness, I note that the reference to the "commission in court session" and "commission" in the above passage should now be a reference to this Court. That is because the Commission in Court Session (which, following the Industrial Relations Amendment Act 2005 (NSW), became known as the Industrial Court of New South Wales) was abolished and its jurisdiction under s 139 of the Act was transferred to the Supreme Court by the Industrial Relations Amendment (Industrial Court) Act 2016 (NSW) ("the 2016 Amendment Act").
In Education Secretary v AEU [2022], I summarised at [206]-[208] the relevant factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate penalty for a contravention of a dispute order: [206] From those authorities the following kinds of considerations are appropriate to take into account in sentencing for a contravention of a dispute order, pursuant to s 139 of the Act: (1) the nature and extent of the contravening conduct including the period over which the contraventions extended; (2) the deliberateness of the contravention; (3) the loss or damage caused; (4) the circumstances in which relevant contravention took place; (5) the size of the contravener, the degree of its power and the degree of involvement of senior officials or management of the organisation; (6) whether the contravener, found to be in contravention of a dispute order, had previously been found to have engaged in conduct in contravention of an earlier dispute order; (7) the culture of the contravener (in this case of an organisation) as to compliance or contravention; (8) the need for deterrence; (9) any relevant subjective factors including undertakings regarding further conduct and cooperation with the regulator and contrition; and (10) the attitude of the contravener to compliance with the relevant law. [207] As the Full Court of the Federal Court observed in Pattinson [v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (2020) 282 FCR 580; [2020] FCAFC 177] (at [99]), a list of this kind is not a "legal checklist" but a judicial description of likely relevant considerations applicable to the task of undertaking an instinctive synthesis leading to an appropriate penalty in the circumstances of the particular case, bearing in mind the statutory maximum penalty. The list certainly does not constitute a rigid catalogue of matters for attention and does not constitute mandatory criteria, even though they will assist in capturing relevant matters for consideration. [208] Furthermore, as stated in Pattinson (at [100]) many features of the contravention will be relevant to the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence. An understanding, as to the appropriate degree of deterrence necessary, will be reflected in the size of the penalty. However, the imposition of an appropriate penalty, given the object of deterrence, does not authorise and empower the imposition of an oppressive penalty, that is, one that is more than is appropriate to deter a contravention of the kind before the Court.
The principles contained in the above passage were not disturbed by the High Court on appeal in Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson (2022) 314 IR 301; [2022] HCA 13 ("Pattinson").
I note that s 139(3)(a) of the Act provides that this Court may dismiss the matter even if the Court finds that there has been a contravention provided that "the circumstances were such" that this Court "should take no action on the contravention". In my view, s 139(3)(a) may be engaged where, despite a breach of dispute orders, there are such extenuating circumstances or the matter is so trivial that imposing a penalty would not be appropriate. As explained by Windeyer J, "a capacity in special circumstances to avoid the rigidity of inexorable law is of the very essence of justice": Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257 at 269. Nevertheless, the dismissal of the matter where a contravention has been proven is usually reserved for an "exceptional case": see generally Fire Brigade Employees' Union of New South Wales v Fire and Rescue NSW [2014] NSWIRComm 16 at [20]-[21] (Walton J, President) ("FBEU v FRNSW [2014]").
For example, where a union is the defendant in proceedings under s 139 of the Act, the union may be able to demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to prevent industrial action from occurring and, if the strike commenced, endeavoured to prevent it continuing: see Board of Fire Commissioners of NSW v NSW Fire Brigade Employees Union [1953] AR (NSW) 622 at 630 (Cantor, De Baim and Weir JJ); Tooth & Co Ltd v Federated Engine Drivers & Firemen's Association [1968] AR (NSW) 242 (Cook, Kelleher and Sheehy JJ). This would be satisfied if the union proactively took serious and genuine steps and did not merely sit idly by: Moray v Federated Engine Drivers & Firemen's Union [1963] AR (NSW) 830 at 844 (McKeon and Beattie JJ); The Minister v Stove, Piano Frame, etc, Union [1919] AR (NSW) 39 (Edmunds J). It is unlikely to be accepted where the union has taken some small steps to prevent the strike but also failed to substantially act to prevent the strike: see John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v Printing Industry Employees Union [1963] AR (NSW) 97 (Taylor J, President, Beattie and Kelleher JJ). This is particularly so when a governing organ of an organisation has the capacity to cancel or prevent industrial action but fails to do so.
Three past decisions illustrate the wide discretion available under s 139(3)(a) of the Act. First, in Education Director-General v NSWTF [2000] NSWIRComm 103, the Commission in Court Session dismissed contravention proceedings under s 139(3)(a) of the Act, notwithstanding that it found that the union had "wilfully disobeyed the dispute orders" and "the contravention was a serious one": at [8]. Marks J explained at [9]-[10]: [9] Notwithstanding the serious nature of the contravention I am, however, persuaded to accede to the application made by Mr Crawshaw for two principal reasons. The first and, in my view, the most significant is the apology made by the respondent, the New South Wales Teachers' Federation and its declaration of belief in and willingness to uphold the integrity of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. Such a public acknowledgment and declaration should ensure that the New South Wales Teachers' Federation will not engage in any activity or conduct of any kind in the future which will lead it to contravene any orders of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. [10] The second matter is the fact that the applicant Director General of the Department of Education and Training has supported the dismissal of the proceedings without the imposition of any penalty.
Secondly, in Bluescope Steel v Australian Workers Union, New South Wales (No 3) [2006] NSWIRComm 307 ("BlueScope (No 3) [2006]"), dispute orders were made by the Commission banning industrial action for one month. These orders were made in relation to strike action that was proposed to be taken in protest at the dismissal of an employee for allegedly threatening behaviour towards a supervisor: at [7]. During the period in which those dispute orders operated, industrial action was taken on plant-wide basis over enterprise bargaining and outsourcing.
In the contravention proceedings, the union was found to have breached dispute orders. However, Boland J, as his Honour then was, decided not to impose any penalty and dismissed the matter under s 139(3)(a) of the Act because the responsible union official held a genuine and honest belief that dispute orders did not apply to industrial action over enterprise bargaining and outsourcing. His Honour's reasoning at [50]-[51] is as follows: [50] Having heard all of the evidence in this matter and having had the opportunity to see Mr Anderson [who was the Acting Branch Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales Port Kembla, South Coast and Southern Highlands Branch] in the witness box, I consider Mr Anderson did have an honest and genuine belief the orders did not apply and that there was a reasonable foundation for that belief. I have also had particular regard to Mr Hatcher's submission that the AWU now has a proper understanding of the scope of dispute orders once made, that it regrets the misunderstanding, that it will regulate its conduct accordingly and that there can be no excuse in the future that the AWU did not understand the position. [51] In the absence of a clear-cut case that a penalty is warranted I would be concerned that if a penalty were imposed, justice would not be done and would not be seen to be done with potential adverse industrial consequences for the relationship between the industrial parties at the steel works. No order as to costs.
Thirdly, in BlueScope (No 2) [2005], the Full Bench emphasised in very strong terms that the breach of dispute orders (which involved a strike that resulted in the delayed dispatch of urgent and important stock for Electrolux) was "plainly a serious offence": at 330 [5] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Marks J). The Full Bench held that the strike was "deliberate and strategic": at 331 [7].
Notwithstanding that the employer sought a penalty "at the top of the range" (at 330 [3]), the Full Bench held that the imposition of a penalty should be deferred. That order was the most appropriate course in all the circumstances to achieve industrial peace and deter similar breaches in the future. This is because that remedy gave an opportunity for the defendant union to demonstrate its commitment to ensure compliance with the urgent dispatch provisions of the enterprise agreement, which provided that there was to be no interruption to the supply of urgent product during periods of industrial disputation. The President, Wright J, Marks J and I explained at 330-331 [5]: In these circumstances, even though (contrary to the AWU's submissions) this is plainly a serious offence, we have decided to defer imposing any penalty to give the union and its members a chance to demonstrate their commitment to honour the agreement made with the company, knowing that Mr Gillespie [who was the Port Kembla, South Coast and Southern Highlands sub-branch secretary of the AWU] has said he will do everything within his power to make sure that urgent product is dispatched as required by the Award. We have fixed a period of two years for this purpose but we will relist the matter, on application, within that period if there is any further industrial action after today at the steelworks by the union contrary to the terms of any order, award or agreement.
The Full Bench also directed that the union provide all members of its union who worked at the premises with a copy of its judgment "[s]o that all members concerned may understand their obligations and the consequences of any breach": at 331 [7] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Marks J). The employer was asked to give assistance for copies to be distributed. And Mr Gillespie was directed to file an affidavit setting out the steps taken to comply with the Full Bench's direction.
These decisions demonstrate the practical approach of the former Industrial Court in contravention proceedings and when dealing with industrial disputes more generally. It emphasises that the function of this Court, as the successor of the former Industrial Court, is to give effect to the objects of the Act by assisting in the peaceful resolution of industrial disputes and the promotion of industrial harmony.
Therefore, whether a defendant has made a statement of regret or commitment to act differently in the future is a highly relevant consideration in these kinds of proceedings. In this respect, I refer to the remarks of Fagan J in Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2017], which were made in the midst of a contravention of dispute orders by the union, at 734 [52]-[53]: [52] It would significantly mitigate the penalty if the Association were willing, after today's date and before the strike takes place, to recognise the necessity for it to observe the orders of the commissioner. If the strike should be called off a very different light would be cast on the level of penalty than that which falls upon it as at today's date. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt the Association from demonstrating willingness to abide the commission's orders, by calling off the strike. [53] The opportunity to make amends to the extent possible, before penalty is fixed, is an opportunity which, in other contexts, and I refer again to sentencing law, is available as a matter of course. When a person faces a criminal charge there is inevitably a period of delay between the commission of the offence and the imposition of sentence. In that context the person who is to be penalised has the opportunity to think upon his or her actions and may gain significant amelioration of penalty by recognising fault, expressing regret and thereby blunting what would otherwise be the severity of the court's orders.
I will return to the factors for determining the appropriate course of action under s 139(3) later in my judgment.

[7]

The Events Before the February Orders

On 16 March 2021, the General Secretary of the Association, Mr Brett Holmes, sent a letter to the Secretary regarding changes to the Public Health System Nurses' and Midwives' (State) Award.
On that same day, Mr Holmes sent a letter to the then-Premier, The Hon Gladys Berejiklian MP, expressing concern that "the current system of Nursing Hours Per Patient Day is not working" and proposing that "[w]e can fix this, together, by implementing a shift-by-shift nurse-to-patient ratio system". The letter stated that this ratio system "ensures every patient on every shift gets the care they require. It ensures our members potential to burn out is dramatically decreased".
The letter also noted that, during March 2021, members of the Associations met in workplaces and "unanimously endorsed a log of claims for the upcoming negotiations". The resolutions of the Association's Branches were stated in the letter as follows: 1. This Branch of the NSWNMA endorses the 2021 draft Ratios, Pay & Conditions Claim for our Award, which includes improving and extending the ratios system for safe patient care and a strong future for nursing and midwifery in NSW. We therefore resolve to campaign strongly in our workplaces and in our communities until our claim is won. 2. The Branch of the NSWNMA notes that: - During the COVID pandemic it has been our work and commitment that has ensured our health care system has coped with the crisis. - This success has come at a cost, both emotionally and financially, and to safeguard the future we must win our claim. We therefore call on the Berejiklian Government to work with us to deliver safe patient care through shift-by-shift ratios.
On 15 April 2021, the Executive Director, Workplace Relations of the Ministry of Health, Ms Annie Owens, responded to the letter to the Secretary stating that the Ministry of Health does not agree with the Association's claim and made an offer that proposed a 1.5% increase to wages and wage related allowances and new consent awards to be made (to replace existing awards) that contain the increased pay rates and roll over existing award provisions.
On 10 September 2021, Mr Holmes wrote to the then-Premier as well as the Minister for Health, The Hon Brad Hazzard MP, to bring to their attention their concerns with providing safe nursing care under the current staffing levels. It noted that the Association raised these concerns in meetings with the Ministry of Health and "no action was taken". The letter attached "an open letter signed by over 700 intensive care nurses demanding the NSW Government improve staffing within all ICUs, in line with the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses (ACCCN) Workforce Standards for Intensive Care Nursing". It summarised this demand as follows: 1. ICU: One Registered Nurse to one ICU Patient; HDU: One Registered Nurse to two patients plus In-charge RN (however titled) plus one ACCESS nurse per pod/unit on all shifts without a patient load. 2. Nurses who are part of a response team (however named) will be provided in addition to the minimum ratios. The ratios will apply to patients who are clinically assessed as requiring critical nursing care even if they are not situated in a designated ICU or HDU (however named). 3. A Clinical Nurse Consultant and Nurse Practitioner as appropriate will be provided in addition to the minimum ratios. One Clinical Nurse Educator per 30 nurses - in compliance with the Award provision without a patient load. 5. One Registered Nurse to two patients (HDU) (doubled patients) to be no more than one room maximum apart, maintaining visual line of sight at all times. In addition to this base staffing, a COVID-19 float nurse (however titled) without a patient load should be available to assist in the current pandemic.
On 7 October 2021, the Deputy Secretary, People Culture and Governance of NSW Health, Mr Phil Minns, sent a letter to Mr Holmes. The letter appears to relate to a request from the Association for Nursing Hours Per Patient Per Day ("NHPPPD") data. Mr Minns acknowledged that cl 53(II)(r) of the Public Health System Nurses' and Midwives' (State) Award "provides that [NHPPPD] staffing is identified in Nursing Hours wards, and for the posting of [NHPPPD] spot check reports, should staff wish to confirm [NHPPPD] staffing levels". The letter noted that the data is provided by Local Health Districts ("LHD") and suggested that the Association submit any future requests for such data to the relevant LHD.
On 26 November 2021, Mr Holmes sent a letter to the Premier, The Hon Dominic Perrottet MP, and the Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional New South Wales, The Hon Paul Toole MP, regarding "a chronic staffing crisis" in rural, regional and remote hospitals "that has diminished the safe delivery of public health care". The letter noted that Queensland Health offers its public sector nurses up to $25,000 per year of benefits for free or subsidised accommodation, professional development allowance, paid professional development leave, appointment and relocation costs, fly in-fly out with recreation leave, and bonus payments. The letter proposed that "an appropriate solution…should be a minimum of three nurses on every shift, in every [Multi-Purpose Services site], two of whom must be registered nurses".
On 21 January 2022, the A/General Secretary of the Association, Ms Shaye Candish, wrote a letter to Mr Perrottet advising that state-wide delegates voted the condemn the government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The letter noted that "[o]ur call for shift-to-shift nurse/midwife to patent ratios has gone unheeded". The letter stated "[w]hen we ask for improvements in staffing in your public hospitals, we are told it offends your public sector wages cap". The letter called on the government to implement the Association's revised ratios claim, negotiate in good faith for a pay rise, provide immediate access to Rapid Antigen Tests for healthcare workers, allow nurses and midwives to access Special Leave (Pandemic Leave) when positive with COVID-19 and implement a COVID-19 payment allowance for nurses and midwives.
On 2 February 2022, the Association, via its Facebook page, asked all its members to meet and vote on the Association's recommendation that they participate in a State-wide strike on Tuesday 15 February 2022.
As at 3:00pm on 11 February 2022, the extent of proposed industrial action by LHD as advised to the Ministry of Health was as follows: LHD Association Branches in LHD taking action Duration of action in hours Central Coast LHD 6 2-12 Far West LHD 1 1 Hunter New England LHD 17 2-24 Illawarra Shoalhaven LHD 7 8-24 Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health 3 2-24 Murrumbidgee LHD 8 1-8 Mid North Coast LHD 2 4-8 Nepean Blue Mountains LHD 9 8.5 Northern NSW LHD 5 8.5 Northern Sydney LHD 3 8.5-24 Sydney Children's Hospitals Network 2 8-12 South Eastern Sydney LHD 8 8-15 Sydney LHD 4 6-24 Southern NSW LHD 9 2-14 South Western Sydney LHD 5 8.5 Western NSW LHD 4 1-4 Western Sydney LHD 4 12

[9]

The First Dispute and February Orders

On 11 February 2022, the prosecutor notified the Industrial Registrar of an industrial dispute ("the First Dispute") (IRC file number 2022/00041072). On the Form 4, it was noted that there was threatened State-wide strike on 15 February 2022. The notification stated that "[s]hould a strike action occur it will cause significant disruption to the safe staffing of health facilities and presenting a risk to employee and public health and safety". The notification sought the Commission's assistance to resolve the dispute on an urgent basis.
On 14 February 2022, Commissioner Murphy conducted a compulsory conciliation of the First Dispute. Following that compulsory conference, the Commission issued a certificate that reasonable attempts had been made to resolve the First Dispute by conciliation and moved the hearing into arbitration.
At the arbitration, the Secretary was represented by Ms Vanja Bulut of Counsel and the Association was represented by Ms Sarah Davis, an Industrial Officer but not legally qualified. The Commission received evidence from the Director, Industrial Relations and Management of the Ministry of Health, Ms Elizabeth Allen, and then proceeded to hear argument from Ms Bulut seeking dispute orders and Ms Davis opposing the making of such orders.
At approximately 3:50pm, after hearing Ms Bulut in reply, the Commissioner, without giving reasons, proceeded to ask about the form of the orders. A discussion ensued about the precise wording and numbering of the orders and directions sought by the Secretary. The Commissioner then signed and stamped the text of the orders and gave copies to the parties at or around 4:00pm.
The February Orders were in the following terms: ORDERS A. Pursuant to s.137 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996[,] the Commission makes the following orders: 1. The NSW Nurses and Midwives Association ("the Association"), its officers, employees, agents and its members employed in NSW Health entities, are hereby ordered to immediately cease organising and refrain from taking any form of industrial action by those employees engaged under the Public Health System Nurses' and Midwives' (State) Award 2021 at NSW Health being the planned strike/s on 15 February 2022. 2. The Association, its officers, employees and agents, and members must not induce, advise, authorise, support, encourage, direct, aid or abet members of the Association to organise or take industrial action contrary to Order A1. 3. Association members must not induce, advise, authorise, support, encourage, direct, aid or abet other members of the Association to organise or take industrial action contrary to Order A1. 4. These orders take effect immediately and shall remain in force until 4:00pm on Monday 14 March 2022 or until further order of the Commission. DIRECTIONS B. Pursuant to ss. 136(1) and 163 of the Industrial Relations Act, the Commission makes the following directions: 1. The Association shall by no later than 5pm on 14 February 2022 issue a public statement which retracts and revokes its direction and/or recommendation to members to strike on 15 February 2022. 2. The Association must immediately take all reasonable steps to discourage and prevent its members employed in NSW Health entities from taking industrial action contrary to Order A1 and must thereafter continue to take such steps whilst these orders remain in effect. 3. Without limiting the steps required to be taken by direction 2, the Association must take the following steps by 5pm on 14 February 2022: a. remove any reference to the strike to occur on 15 February 2022 from its website, social media accounts or any documents linked to its website or social media accounts; b. publish in a prominent position on its website, the Association's Facebook and other social media pages, Order A1 and a direction to members that they comply with those orders and not take industrial action on 15 February 2022. c. Send by email and mobile telephone message to all members a link to Order A1 and a direction to comply with those orders and not take industrial action on 15 February 2022. 4. The Association must, by no later than 5:00pm on 14 February 2022, provide or cause to be provided a copy of Orders A1, A2, A3 and A4 above to Association Representatives employed by the Notifier, all members of the Association Executive and all members of the Association Council. 5. The Association must advise the Notifier's legal representative in writing by 6:00pm on 14 February 2022 of the steps taken to comply with Directions B1, B2, B3 and B4 above, including the form of communications, and if written, a copy of any communications, and the further steps it intends to take (if any) to comply with Directions B1, B2, B3, and B4 in respect of any relevant member who, by that time, has not been notified.
Relevantly, at no point after the hearing of argument and before the making of the orders or adjournment of the arbitration hearing that day did the Commissioner give his reasons for making the dispute orders. Nor did the Commissioner subsequently deliver written or oral reasons for making the dispute orders.

[10]

The Events Following the February Orders

At approximately 7:00pm on 14 February 2022, the Association caused a post to be published on its Facebook page, stating: STRIKE ACTIONS WILL GO AHEAD TOMORROW! The Council of the NSWNMA supports members to maintain the pressure so the NSW premier [sic] listens to your claims for safe patient care and commits to nurse-to-patient ratios on every shift and safe levels in maternity units. Individual workers are NOT targeted by the IRC with fines for disregarding any recommendations or orders they issue. Your employer may try to dissuade nurses and midwives from taking strike action with talk of IRC orders or distribute copies of orders. REMEMBER the community needs to hear the truth - current staffing levels are inadequate, unsafe and putting patients at risk.
The post was accompanied by an image with the text "NURSES AND MIDWIVES STAY THE COURSE! ON SAFE STAFFING RATIOS" in large white and yellow text. There is smaller text on the side that says "IT'S TIME FOR ACTION".
On 15 February 2022, the Association caused a post to be published on its Facebook and Instagram accounts stating: Nurses and midwives from across the state are getting ready to #StrikeForRatios! History has it's eyes on you today! Let's make sure every politician in our great state know that we mean it when we say we need safe staffing ratios for patient safety. Support your nurses and midwives today by joining us today at our strike rally. …
On 15 February 2022, strike action and multiple rallies occurred across the State that were organised by the defendant. Employees of the NSW Health Service (as that term is defined in ss 115 and 116 of the Health Services Act 1997 (NSW)) took industrial action by not attending or performing work for a period of time. The industrial action lasted 24 hours with the earliest beginning at 7:00am on 15 February 2022 and concluding by 7:00am on 16 February 2022.
On that day, at or around 8:07am, 9:59am, 12:26pm, 3:44pm, 4:55pm and 7:00pm, the Association caused posts on its Facebook page containing photos and video clips of "strike action" that day. One of those posts is accompanied by photos that pictured strike action or rallies with labels containing their locations around the State. The post states: From Broken Bay to Byron, Lismore to Albury, nurses and midwives across the state took decisive strike action to show Premier Perrottet that it's time to listen to trusted health professionals. It's time for safe staffing ratios and fair pay! #StrikeForRatios
The action was related to the "#StrikeForRatios" campaign by the defendant, which supports their claim for: 1. A "transparent shift-by-shift ratios system, with an appropriate skill mix and staffing levels based on the number of patients in each ward, unit or service"; and 2. A "fair pay increase for their unwavering commitment to deliver high levels of patient care during a period where the NSW health system was tested as never before", the latter being a reference to the care provided during the COVID-19 pandemic.

[11]

The Second Dispute and March Orders

The proceedings in the Commission relating to the First Dispute was listed for conciliation on 25 March 2022 at 11:00am.
On 24 March 2022, the legal representative for the Secretary, Ms Katherine Murray for the NSW Crown Solicitor, sent a letter to the Industrial Registrar relevantly stating as follows: The Secretary has been made aware that the respondent, the NSW Nurses and Midwives' Association ("NSWNMA"), has threatened further industrial action in the form of a 24-hour strike on 31 March 2022. The "second statewide strike" has also been widely reported in the media. I have written to the NSWMNA on 23 March 2022 seeking confirmation of withdrawal of the threat of further industrial action but have not received a response. In the circumstances, the Secretary makes an application, on an urgent basis, for dispute orders in similar terms as those made by the Commission on 14 February 2022 including restraining NSWMNA from taking industrial action until 30 June 2022.
At the listing on 25 March 2022, the Commission turned to consider the issues raised in Ms Murray's letter. The parties did not agree on whether the Secretary's application was a new dispute or part of the First Dispute. Commissioner Murphy proceeded on the basis that the Secretary's application for further dispute orders was a new dispute and allocated it a new file number (IRC file number 2022/00085833).
Commissioner Webster then conducted a compulsory conciliation of the Second Dispute and issued a certificate of attempted conciliation.
Later in the day, the matter moved to arbitration before Commissioner Murphy. The Secretary was represented by Ms Janet McDonald of Counsel (as the Commissioner then was) and the Association was represented by Ms Roisin Beard, an Industrial Officer. The Commission again received evidence from Ms Allen. The Commission heard argument from Ms McDonald seeking dispute orders and Ms Beard opposing the making of such orders. It was noted that, between First and Second Disputes, the Association had served the Secretary with a log of claims.
After hearing from both Ms McDonald and Ms Beard, the Commissioner, without giving reasons, proceeded to ask about the form of the orders. Following a discussion ensued about the precise wording and numbering of the orders and direction, the Commissioner then signed and stamped the text of the orders and gave copies to the parties.
The March Orders were in the following terms: ORDERS A. Pursuant to s.137 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996[,] the Commission makes the following orders: 1. The NSW Nurses and Midwives Association ("the Association"), its officers, employees, agents and its members employed in NSW Health entities, are hereby ordered to immediately cease organising and refrain from taking industrial action by those employees engaged under the Public Health System Nurses' and Midwives' (State) Award 2021 at NSW Health being the planned strike/s on 31 March 2022. 2. The Association, its officers, employees and agents, and members must not induce, advise, authorise, support, encourage, direct, aid or abet members of the Association to organise or take industrial action contrary to Order A1. 3. These orders take effect immediately and shall remain in force until 4:00pm on Monday 2 May 2022 or until further order of the Commission. DIRECTIONS B. Pursuant to ss. [sic] 136(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, the Commission makes the following directions: 1. The Association shall by no later than 12 pm on 28 March 2022 issue a public statement which retracts and revokes its direction and/or recommendation to members to strike on 31 March 2022. 2. The Association must immediately take all reasonable steps to discourage and prevent its members employed in NSW Health entities from taking industrial action contrary to Order A1 and must thereafter continue to take such steps whilst these orders remain in effect. 3. Without limiting the steps required to be taken by direction 2, the Association must take the following steps by 5pm on 25 March 2022: a. remove any reference to the strike to occur on 31 March 2022 from its website, social media accounts or any documents linked to its website or social media accounts; b. publish in a prominent position on its website, the Association's Facebook and other social media pages, Order A1 and a direction to members that they comply with those orders and not take industrial action on 31 March 2022. c. Send by email and mobile telephone message to all members a link to Order A1 and a direction to comply with those orders and not take industrial action on 31 March 2022. 4. The Association must, by no later than 5:00pm on 25 March 2022, provide or cause to be provided a copy of Orders A1, A2, and A3 above to Association Representatives employed by the Notifier, all members of the Association Executive and all members of the Association Council. 5. The Association must advise the Notifier's legal representative in writing by 5:00pm on 28 March 2022 of the steps taken to comply with Directions B1, B2, B3 and B4 above, including the form of communications, and if written, a copy of any communications, and the further steps it intends to take (if any) to comply with Directions B1, B2, B3, and B4 in respect of any relevant member who, by that time, has not been notified.
Like the First Dispute, at no point after the hearing of argument and before the making of the orders or adjournment of the arbitration hearing that day did the Commissioner give his reasons for making the dispute orders. Nor did the Commissioner subsequently deliver written or oral reasons for making the dispute orders.

[12]

The Events Following the March Orders

On 28 March 2022, Mr Holmes sent a letter to Ms Murray that relevantly contained the following: The New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association ('the Association') advises the following steps that have been taken in part compliance with Commissioner Murphy's directions. On Friday 25 March 2022 an email with link to a copy of Commissioner Murphy's orders and directions was sent by the Association to: - all Public Health System Branch members; - all Association staff members; - all members of the Association Executive; and - all members of the Association Council. … The Association confirms it is not in a position to comply with directions B.1, B.2, B. 3. a) and B. 3. b).
The email referred to in Mr Holmes' letter was a reference to an email sent by the defendant at or around 4:44pm on 25 March 2022. The email contained a link to the March Orders and included the following text: This afternoon we reappeared in the NSW Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) and as anticipated, the Ministry of Health sought to stop your planned strike action. At the Ministry's request, the IRC has made new orders against the Association today. You'll recall orders were placed on the Association prior to our 15 February strike, which proceeded as planned. A copy of the new orders can be found here. Remember, while the Association can be fined for not complying with a dispute order made by the IRC, individual members are not targeted for fines. The NSWNMA Council supports democratic action members choose to take in the pursuit of safe staffing. It's time to hold strong, continue the fight and attend your rally as planned.
The prosecutor alleges that, on 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 March 2022, officers and/or agents of the defendant organised or encouraged its members and employees of the NSW Health Service to take industrial action on 31 March 2022.
On 28 March 2022, an Organiser of the Public Health Organising Team of the defendant, Ms Zoe-Anne Guinea, sent an email to representatives of the prosecutor stating: The members have chosen to defy the orders as per the directive of the NSWMNA so the strike will go ahead. All branch [sic] have voted to strike except Lismore and Ballina because of the extreme hardships that the hospital and community is currently facing.
On 31 March 2022, strike action and multiple rallies was organised by the defendant and attended by members of the Association and employees of the NSW Health Service. The industrial action, which involved employees not attending or performing work for a period of time, lasted 24 hours with the earliest beginning at 7:00am on 31 March 2022 and concluding by 7:00am on 1 April 2022.
At or around 8:00am on 1 April 2022, the Association caused a post to be published on its Facebook page that stated: It's clear nurses and midwives have had enough of the Perrottet government's policy of understaffing our health system. Thank you to the brave nurses and midwives from across the state who took strong action yesterday, and sent a clear message to the Premier that enough is enough!
Before turning to other matters, I note that the parties did not provide this Court with a complete chronology of the events, including events leading up to the proceedings in the Commission and events after the strike action. In future contravention proceedings, the parties should provide an agreed chronology or, failing agreement, the respective chronologies of the parties.

[13]

Procedural History

On 5 April 2022, the Secretary filed a Summons in this Court. seeking the following relief: 1. The issue of a show cause summons in the form filed herewith. 2. An order that the show cause summons be returnable at 2pm on Monday 11 April 2022. 3. An order pursuant to r. 1.12(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules abridging the time for service of the show cause summons to 4:00pm on ___________. 4. Imposition of monetary penalties in accordance with ss. 139(3)(e) and 139(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) ("IR Act").
I am satisfied that the Secretary may bring an application under the second sentence in s 139(1) of the Act. The Secretary was the person who applied for the relevant dispute orders in the Commission. The employer of the relevant employees concerned is the Crown in the right of the State of New South Wales: see Chapman-Davis v New South Wales (2015) 90 NSWLR 533; [2015] NSWIC 10 at 538 [12]-[15] (Walton J, President) ("Chapman-Davis"), citing New South Wales v Bishop (2014) 14 DDCR 1; [2014] NSWCA 354 at 8 [26]-[28] (Emmett JA with whom Basten and Gleeson JJA agreed) and affirmed in Re Ambulance Award at 196 [6], [8] (Walton J, President, Kite AJ and Commissioner Tabbaa). Nevertheless, the Secretary was entitled to bring an application because s 116H of the Health Services Act 1997 (NSW) provides that the Secretary is "taken to be the employer" for the purposes of industrial proceedings.
Therefore, as the Secretary was an "employer" under s 130(1)(b) of the Act, the Secretary could notify the Commission of an industrial dispute and apply for a dispute order under s 136(2) of the Act. Similar provisions also exist in other Acts: see, eg, Government Sector Employment Act 2013 (NSW) s 50 (Industrial Relations Secretary); Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) s 104(9) (Chief Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption); Fire and Rescue NSW Act 1989 (NSW) ss 69 and 70 (Industrial Relations Secretary and Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW); Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (NSW) s 33E (Auditor-General); Police Act 1990 (NSW) s 85 (Commissioner of Police); Teaching Service Act 1980 (NSW) s 12 (Secretary of the Department of Education); Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW) ss 59(3) (Chief Investigator of the Office of Transport Safety Investigations), 68K(3) (Transport Secretary).
On 5 April 2022, Campbell J made orders forthwith issuing the show cause summons and making it returnable on 12 April 2022.
On 12 April 2022, the matter was managed to a hearing by Beech-Jones CJ at CL by the consent of the parties.
On the first hearing day, following my rulings on various objections to the evidence, I gave a short adjournment to the next day so that the Amended Summons and the parties' amended submissions could be filed. The Amended Summons is annexed to this judgment.
After the second hearing day, when it became clear that more time was necessary for the parties to complete oral submissions, I adjourned to the earliest possible date that suited the parties.
A communication was sent by my Associate inviting the parties to make further submissions on the third hearing day on the availability of a collateral challenge or attack in this proceeding with reference to the following two articles: Mark Aronson, 'Criteria for Restricting Collateral Challenge' (1998) 9 Public Law Review 237 and Enid Campbell, 'Collateral Challenge of the Validity of Governmental Action' (1998) 24 Monash University Law Review 272.
After the third hearing day, I granted leave and directed the parties to file notes on whether or not, as a matter of law, a union may "take" industrial action in the facts and circumstances of the case. I was mindful to give the parties the time they sought to prepare the notes and allowed them to file notes in reply within one week if they wished. After the last note was received on 29 July 2022, judgment was reserved.

[14]

Issues

This matter raised a wide range of very significant issues. It became very different to ordinary contravention proceedings because the defendant sought to attack the validity of the dispute orders of the Commission for two alleged errors. The first alleged error is the failure to give reasons. The second is that the Commission failed to respond to a substantial and clearly articulated argument advanced by a party.
At the beginning of the hearing, the prosecutor noted that there were four broad issues for determination. I will state the issues and questions for determination as follows.
On the first issue, which I deal with in this judgment under the part titled "Collateral Attack", the questions before the Court are as follows: 1. Is the defendant's attack on the validity of the Commission's orders a "collateral attack"? If no, then the Court can hear and determine the merits of the errors alleged by the defendant. 2. If yes to question (1), does s 179 of the Act prevent collateral attack of the Commission's orders? If yes, then the Court is prevented by the privative clause from hearing and determining the collateral attack. 3. If no to question (2), does this Court have a discretion to hear and determine the collateral attack? If the answer is no, then the Court is required to hear and determine the merits of the collateral attack. 4. If yes to question (3), should the Court exercise its discretion to hear and determine the collateral attack? If no, then the Court will not determine the collateral attack. If yes, then the Court will hear and determine the merits of the collateral attack.
If the first issue is resolved in a way that allows the Court to hear and determine the merits of the errors alleged by the defendant, the Court proceeds to the second issue, which is under the title "The Validity of the Dispute Orders". The questions before the Court are as follows: 1. Was the Commission under an obligation to give reasons when the Commission made the dispute orders? If no, the Commission made no error when it did not give reasons and continue to questions (3) and (4). 2. If yes to question (1), did the failure to give reasons amount to jurisdictional error? If yes, the purported decision of the Commission to make the February and March Orders were, in law, "no decision at all". 3. If no to questions (1) or (2), did the Commission fail to consider a substantial and clearly articulated argument raised by the defendant in making the February Orders? If yes, the purported decision of the Commission to make the February Orders were vitiated by jurisdictional error and were, in law, "no decision at all". 4. If no to questions (1) or (2), did the Commission fail to consider a substantial and clearly articulated argument raised by the defendant in making the March Orders? If yes, the purported decision of the Commission to make the March Orders were vitiated by jurisdictional error and were, in law, "no decision at all". If no to questions (3) or (4), then the February and March Orders were not affected by jurisdictional error.
If the first and second issues are resolved in a way that leaves legally valid dispute orders, the third issue concerns whether the contraventions alleged by the prosecutor are established. The third issue is under the title "Contraventions" in this judgment. It is necessary to this issue to also answer three questions: 1. Do the particulars alleged by the prosecutor in pleaded contraventions C to F amount to breaches of the March Orders? If the answer is "no", pleaded contraventions C to F are not established. 2. Can an industrial organisation take industrial action? This question is of particular relevance to pleaded contraventions B and J. If the answer is "no", pleaded contraventions B and J are not established. 3. What is the proper approach to determining the "course of conduct" principle?
If the third issue is resolved in a way that the alleged contraventions are established, the fourth issue arises under the heading "Appropriate Penalty". The question before the Court is what is the appropriate penalty that should be imposed. Within this broader question are the following preliminary issues: 1. What is the relevance of the defendant's deliberate conduct to determining the appropriate penalty? 2. What is the impact of Pattinson on the Court's determination of the appropriate penalty? 3. Whether the defendant's lack of prior contraventions can be a mitigating factor in determining the appropriate penalty? 4. Can this Court take on judicial notice matters of common knowledge in the industrial relations context?

[15]

Obligation to Act Expeditiously

I note, on the outset, that s 139(1) of the Act states that this Court "must deal expeditiously with an alleged contravention of a dispute order".
In Education Director-General v NSWTF [2000] NSWIRComm 17, contravention proceedings under s 139 of the Act for the imposition of a penalty were commenced in the Commission in Court Session around the same time as an appeal was lodged to the Full Bench from the underlying dispute orders made by the Commission. Marks J held that the requirement to act expeditiously in s 139(1) of the Act did not prevent the Commission in Court Session delaying the contravention proceedings until the appeal proceedings before the Full Bench had concluded. Marks J held at [29]: The requirement to deal with this application expeditiously has, in my opinion, been satisfied. I do not regard that requirement as in turn compelling this Court to take any precipitous action in connection with the application which it would not otherwise be disposed to take in all the circumstances. For example, the requirement to deal with the application expeditiously should not allow the rules of natural justice to be breached by, for example, denying the respondent a proper opportunity to prepare its case. In the same way I consider that the requirement to deal with the application expeditiously should not circumscribe any other compelling reasons for delaying the ultimate determination of the proceedings.
Guidance may be derived from judicial consideration of the statutory obligation to act expeditiously where it appears in other statutes.
In Y (a pseudonym) v The Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice (No 4) [2021] NSWDC 81, Levy SC DCJ described the requirement in s 94 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) to act expeditiously in care proceedings as a "statutory admonition" that "must of course be given great weight subject to any overriding considerations of procedural fairness". I respectfully agree with that general observation. However, this statutory command does vary depending on the circumstances, including, in the circumstances of that statute, that "the younger the child, the more expedition is required": The Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) and the Rasooli Children [2021] NSWChC 4 at [23] (Johnstone DCJ, President, as the Chief Magistrate then was).
A similar obligation exists in s 71 of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), which provide that "[a] bail application is to be dealt with as soon as reasonably practicable". Section 71 has the heading "Bail applications to be dealt with expeditiously" but headings to individual provisions do not form part of the Act: Interpretation Act s 35(2). In relation to the content of this statutory command, Campbell J stated in Ahmad v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2017] NSWSC 90 at [31] and [38]: [31] … It seems to me that the expression "as soon as reasonably practicable" does import a sense of urgency, however, only as urgently as the limited resources of a court will permit. By "resources", I mean limited judicial resources and other limited facilities for processing matters. These are things over which the courts themselves can exercise but very limited control. … [38] It should not be overlooked that the test or the requirement is one of reasonable practicability; it is not an absolute standard.
In my view, the statutory obligation on this Court to act expeditiously in s 139(1) of the Act requires that the Court to act with a sense of urgency in listing, hearing and determining the matter. The statutory mandate to act expeditiously must be given practical effect by the Court as well as the legal representatives of the parties, whose duty to the Court and the administration of justice is paramount: Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (NSW) r 4(a); Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW) pt 2 r 3.1.
In giving effect to the mandate, the Court should have regard to all the circumstances, including, but not limited to, the need to accord procedural fairness to the parties, judicial resources, complexity of the issues raised and any industrial circumstances. In any case, there may also be important public policy considerations that require industrial disputes to be resolved expeditiously: Bevco Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (New South Wales Branch) [2005] NSWIRComm 182 at [14] (Staff J); see generally Notification under s 130 by the CFMEU of a dispute with Newcrest Mining Ltd (2005) 139 IR 78; [2005] NSWIRComm 77 at 79 [6] (Walton J, Vice-President) ("Newcrest"), cited and affirmed in Newcrest Mining Ltd v IRC of New South Wales and CFMEU (2005) 139 IR 72; [2005] NSWCA 85 at 75 [6] (Bryson JA) and Commissioner of Police v Police Association (NSW) (2005) 141 IR 423; [2005] NSWIRComm 132 at 436 [42] (Wright J, President, Deputy President Grayson and Commissioner Ritchie).
An obligation to act expeditiously is a relevant and important consideration when the Court is programming the matter, ordering the issue of process and when adjournments are sought: see Secretary, NSW Department of Education v The Australian Education Union New South Wales Teachers Federation (NSWTF) Branch [2021] NSWSC 1628 at [9] (Dhanji J) ("Education Secretary v AEU [2021]"); Barr v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2018) 97 NSWLR 246; [2018] NSWCA 47 at 259 [66] (Leeming JA). Such an obligation can also be a relevant consideration in statutory interpretation: see CM v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2022] NSWCA 120 at [26] (Leeming JA with whom Kirk JA and Simpson AJA agreed).
As appropriately acknowledged by both parties, the complexity of this matter made it different from past proceedings brought under s 139 of the Act. As counsel for the defendant stated, this is not a "garden variety dispute order application" and there was no reason that a decision needed to be rushed. Counsel for the prosecutor agreed that there is nothing that placed pressure on the Court to issue a decision more quickly than is required for consideration of all the issues raised. In light of the various issues raised in these proceedings, I have taken more time to consider, and written a more detailed judgment, than what would generally be given in proceedings brought under s 139 of the Act.

[18]

The Defendant's Attack on the Validity of the Commission's Orders were a Collateral Attack

In Ousley, the High Court had to consider whether the County Court of Victoria had jurisdiction to decide a challenge to the validity of a search warrant issued as an administrative act by a Judge of the Supreme Court. This issue arose in the context of whether or not evidence from listening devices introduced pursuant to the warrant was obtained lawfully. The High Court held that the County Court could hear and determine the challenge, at least where it was based upon the face of the warrant and its asserted non-conformity with requirements of the Act authorising the issue of the warrant: at 79-80 (Toohey J), 87 (Gaudron J), 102, 104-105 (McHugh J), 126-127 (Gummow J), 144, 148 (Kirby J).
In that decision, McHugh J described at 98-99 a collateral attack in the following terms: A collateral attack on an act or decision occurs when the act or decision is challenged in proceedings whose primary object is not the setting aside or modification of that act or decision… [It occurs] in proceedings where the validity of the administrative act is merely an incident in determining other issues.
A collateral challenge has been described in the seminal work by Mark Aronson, Matthew Groves and Greg Weeks, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability (Lawbook, 6th ed, 2017) at [10.280] as one where: [T]he allegation of a jurisdictional flaw arises in a matter not designed specifically for handling it, nor necessarily focusing on that issue or involving the directly affected parties, and in a court or tribunal which may not have much administrative law experience.
In this respect, a collateral challenge can be described as an attempt by a party to assert that an administrative or judicial act or decision is void or unlawful in a proceeding that is neither an application for judicial review or a direct appeal or review of that act or decision (including, in the case of some administrative decisions, statutory merits review).
In Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler (1999) 197 CLR 83; [1999] HCA 28 ("Breckler"), Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ said at 108 [36]: [I]n the absence of legislative prescription to the contrary, [an administrative decision] would be open to collateral review by a court in the course of dealing with an issue properly arising as an element in a justiciable controversy of which the court was seised.
The defendant principally relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in Dyldam Developments to support the contention that this Court has jurisdiction and is obliged to consider whether the February and March Orders were valid, and that their challenge to the validity of those orders are not properly characterised as collateral. It is necessary to consider that decision and its interaction with Director of Housing v Sudi (2011) 33 VR 559; [2011] VSCA 266 ("Sudi") in greater detail.

[19]

Director of Housing v Sudi

Sudi was a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal concerning the power of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("VCAT") to collaterally review the decision of the Director of Housing to bring an application for an order for the possession of residential premises.
In that case, the Director brought proceedings in the for possession of residential premises. The Tribunal dismissed the applications on the ground that the Director had breached the Director's obligations under s 38(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) in seeking to evict the respondents from their premises.
The Victorian Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal did not have the power to undertake collateral review of the validity of the Director's proceeding to bring the application for possession. Warren CJ held that such a power would be inconsistent with the stated purpose for the establishment of VCAT as its being to set up a specialist forum of limited jurisdiction that was to provide quick, efficient, inexpensive and informal resolution of issues: at 567 [34], 568 [39].
Her Honour acknowledged the risk that this would lead to fragmentation of proceedings by requiring the respondent to the application for possession to bring a separate proceeding in the Supreme Court to challenge the Director's decision to bring the proceeding but said that this was a necessary consequence of the setting up of a specialist forum of limited jurisdiction: at 567-568 [37]-[39].
Warren CJ held that the legislation establishing VCAT and conferring upon it jurisdiction to deal with residential tenancies "evince an intention to deny VCAT power to collaterally review the validity of a purported administrative decision that happens to be material to the tenancy dispute before VCAT". Her Honour also put it differently as that "the two Acts evince an intention that, in dealing with applications under the [Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic)], VCAT should treat relevant purported administrative decisions as being valid unless and until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction."
Maxwell P and Weinberg JA, writing separately, agreed and elaborated on their reasons. Relevantly, Weinberg JA said that VCAT may have some powers to engage in collateral review, but the extent of those powers was confined by Ousley to challenges brought on the basis of "something akin to 'facial' or 'patent' invalidity": at [261]. The collateral review made by the Tribunal in Sudi was not of that character.

[20]

Dyldam Developments

Dyldam Developments was an appeal from the Appeal Panel of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Proceedings were brought in the Tribunal for a breach of a statutory warranty in relation to the erection of residential building containing 18 units.
There were three documents purporting to be "occupation certificates" for the building. Two were described as "interim" and were issued on 5 September 2011 and 9 September 2011, respectively. It was found by the Tribunal, and appears to be accepted in the Court of Appeal, that these "interim" occupation certificates were issued in contravention of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) ("EPA Act"). The third document was issued on or about 12 October 2011 and was described as a "final" occupation certificate.
The significance of the validity of the interim certificates and the dates of their issue becomes clear once one considers the relevant legislative provisions (as they existed at the relevant time): 1. The first was s 18E(1)(a) of the HB Act, which provided a limitation period for proceedings for breach of a statutory warranty. That kind of proceeding must be commenced within 7 years after the completion of the work to which it related. 2. The second was s 3C(2)(a) of the HB Act, which provides that the completion of residential building work occurs on the date of issue of an occupation certificate that authorises the occupation and use of the whole of the building. 3. The third was s 109H(2) of the EPA Act, which provided that an occupation certificate "must not be issued unless any preconditions to the issue of the certificate that are specified in a development consent … have been met".
Proceedings were commenced in the Tribunal on 4 October 2018. This meant that the proceedings were within seven years of the issue of the final certificate, but more than seven years after the issue of the two interim certificates.
Senior Member Goldstein found that the interim certificates had been issued in breach of s 109H(2) of the EPA Act and thus the two certificates were invalid. On appeal to the Appeal Panel, Dyldam Developments contended that the Tribunal had to take the certificates as having the effect stated on their face. The Appeal Panel disagreed and held that the Tribunal did not err in finding that neither interim certificate had been validly issued and that the Tribunal had power to collaterally review the validity of the occupation certificates: Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan No 85305 [2019] NSWCATAP 229 at [116]-[117], [122] (Armstrong J, President, and Principal Member Pearson)
On appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal, Dyldam Developments contended that the Tribunal had no authority to determine whether an interim occupation certificate was issued in breach of the EPA Act or to grant relief to give effect to such a determination.
White JA (with whom Emmett AJA and Simpson AJA agreed at [110] and [111]) held that the "starting point" is the jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by the HB Act: at [43]. Relevantly, s 48K of the HB Act relevantly provided: 48K Jurisdiction of Tribunal in relation to building claims (1) The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine any building claim brought before it in accordance with this Part in which the amount claimed does not exceed $500,000 (or any other higher or lower figure prescribed by the regulations). (2) The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine any building claim whether or not the matter to which the claim relates arose before or after the commencement of this Division, except as provided by this section. ... (7) The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in respect of a building claim arising from a breach of a statutory warranty implied under Part 2C if the date on which the claim is lodged is after the end of the period within which proceedings for a breach of the statutory warranty must be commenced (as provided by section 18E). …
It was the express denial of jurisdiction by the plain words of s 48K(7) of the HB Act that his Honour emphasised meant that the issue as to whether a building claim is brought inside or outside the limitation period became an issue central to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. To put it simply, the Tribunal could not proceed to hear and determine the building claim until and unless it was satisfied that it had jurisdiction within ss 48K(1)-(2) that was not denied by s 48K(7).
White JA also drew attention to the fact that, whilst the Land and Environment Court has jurisdiction to consider the validity of an occupation certificate, "there is nothing that would confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Land and Environment Court to determine the validity of an occupation certificate": at [48]. Instead, his Honour held that the effect of s 48L of the HB Act was that the Tribunal is to be the forum chiefly responsible for resolving building claims. His Honour held that this "tells against a construction of s 48K that would require a separate proceeding to be commenced in the Land and Environment Court to determine the validity of the certificates on which Dyldam relies": at [47].
It is against this background that White JA held at [57]-[59]: [57] In my view, the issue as to the validity of the certificates was not collateral at all to the proceeding before the Tribunal. It was central to the Tribunal's decision which the Tribunal was both obliged and authorised to make as to its jurisdiction to entertain the claim. As the authority of the Tribunal to decide the issue depends upon the proper construction of the Tribunal's jurisdiction conferred by s 48 of the Home Building Act (Frugtniet v Attorney-General (NSW) (1997) 41 NSWLR 588 at 602), I find it impossible to understand how that legislation does not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to decide whether the effect of the documents relied upon by Dyldam was to authorise the occupation and use of the whole of the building. The facts of this case are, in that respect, quite different from the authorities on the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals to entertain a collateral challenge to the validity of administrative or legislative acts considered by the Appeal Panel and by the Victorian Court of Appeal in Director of Housing v Sudi. [58] In Jacobs v Onesteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd v WorkCover Corporation of SA Debelle J (at [14]) noted that an issue is not truly "collateral" if it is the central issue to be decided. The Appeal Panel described a collateral challenge as one where (at [99]): "... the allegation of a jurisdictional flaw arises in a manner not designed specifically for handling it, nor necessarily focusing on that issue or involving the directly affected parties, and in a court or tribunal which may not have much administrative law experience" (quoting Aronson, Groves and Weeks, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability, 6th ed, 2017 at [10.280]). [59] What is meant by collateral challenge or collateral review will depend upon context. In the sense described by the Tribunal it can be accepted that the respondent makes a collateral challenge to the validity of the certificates. That does not deny the centrality of that challenge to the Tribunal's decision. This informs the construction of s 48K conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal. The challenge is not collateral in the sense described by McHugh J in Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69 at 98-99; [1997] HCA 49 as being merely an incident in the determination of other issues.
White JA explained that the "centrality of the issue to the Tribunal's jurisdiction" distinguishes that case from Sudi. His Honour held at [60]-[61]: [60] … [N]either the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) nor the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) expressly conditioned the Tribunal's jurisdiction on the application being brought in conformity with the applicant's obligations under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act. By contrast in the present case, NCAT's jurisdiction is expressly dependent upon whether the occupation certificates relied upon by Dyldam authorised the occupation and use of the whole of the building. [61] Had the relevant Victorian legislation provided in substance that the Tribunal could make an order for possession only if the applicant, in seeking such an order, complied with the applicant's obligations under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act in bringing the application, one may venture to think that the result would have been different.

[21]

Consideration

It is clear from Dyldam Developments that an attack on the validity of an order, certificate, decision or the like is not to be characterised as a collateral attack if determining the attack is necessary for the court or tribunal to determine whether it has jurisdiction to decide the broader claim brought before it. In contrast, where an attack on the validity of an order, certificate, decision or the like does not go to the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal, it can be properly characterised as a collateral attack. This appears to be clear from the holding of Maxwell P in Sudi at [74]-[75] that because the proceeding in VCAT was conditioned not on the existence of a valid administrative act by a public official, but on the existence of a right of possession of land, there was no capacity for collateral review of the validity of the Director's decision under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Thus, the issue in the present proceedings then turns to whether the validity of the dispute orders is an issue that goes to the jurisdiction of this Court under s 139 of the Act. The defendant submitted that the Court's jurisdiction is conditioned upon the dispute orders being, as a matter of law, valid dispute orders. It necessarily followed from the defendant's submission that a reference to the words "dispute order" or "order" throughout s 139 of the Act can only be to a legally valid dispute order.
In my view, the construction advocated by counsel for the defendant sits ill with the plain text of s 139 of the Act. The jurisdiction of the Court under sub-s (1) is to "deal…with an alleged contravention of a dispute order". This language is repeated in sub-s (2), which reinforces that the Court is "dealing with an alleged contravention of the order". Whenever the words "alleged contravention", "contravened" and "contravention" are used throughout s 139 of the Act, they are used to refer to an "alleged contravention of a dispute order". In my view, this supports a construction whereby an "alleged contravention of a dispute order" is a composite phrase denoting a single element, rather than to require that there be an "alleged contravention" and a valid dispute order as two separate and distinct elements to the jurisdiction of the Court: see generally Sea Shepherd Australia Limited v Commissioner of Taxation (2013) 212 FCR 252; [2013] FCAFC 68 at [34] (Gordon J).
In my view, it is the existence of an alleged contravention brought by an application made by the person who applied for the order or any other person who was authorised to apply for the order that gives jurisdiction on this Court to "deal" with the matter: Franklins v NUW at 295 (Marks J). That application is to be commenced by a commencement summons: Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Sch J Pt 1 cl 1(1) under the heading "Industrial Relations Act 1996"; see also Practice Note SC CL 3 at [23].
This is reinforced by the unique procedure and role of this Court (and the predecessor Industrial Court) in dealing with applications of this kind. After an application has been brought by the filing of a commencement summons, the Court is to consider whether to issue a show cause summons under sub-s (2). There are four features of the Court's procedure and role at this juncture. 1. First, the Court proceeds ex parte and without hearing from the defendant. This was made clear in Woolworths Ltd v National Union of Workers (unreported, Full Industrial Court of New South Wales, CT1056 of 1996, 12 July 1996). In that case, Fisher CJ, Hungerford and Peterson JJ rejected the submission of the union that they should have been given an opportunity to be heard in relation to the issue of the summons to show cause under s 195 of the Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW) (repealed) ("the 1991 Act") (which is the predecessor provision to s 139 of the Act). The Full Court held: There is in our view no obligation on the Registrar to hear at that stage either the applicant or the person alleged to be in breach of the injunction. Section 195(1) requires the issue of the summons by the Registrar if an application to the appropriate effect is lodged. (For context, it is noted that s 195 of the 1991 Act used the language of "injunction" instead of "dispute order" and an application was lodged with the Registrar of the Industrial Court, who was empowered to issue a show cause summons but nothing turns on these differences.) 1. Secondly, the Court will have before it in the show cause proceedings the following three documents (Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Sch J Pt 1 cls 1(2)(d), (3), (4) under the heading "Industrial Relations Act 1996"): 1. The commencement summons, which will include "details and nature of the contravention that is alleged to have occurred"; 2. A draft show cause summons requiring the defendant to appear before the Court to show cause why the Court should not take action for the alleged contravention; and 3. A supporting affidavit made by the prosecutor that verifies the details and nature of the alleged contravention. It is clear that the Court will only have limited documents and, importantly, would not have any evidence or submissions from the defendant. 1. Thirdly, the nature of the determination before the Court is "essentially being one that will result, if successful, in the issue of process": Education Secretary v AEU [2021] at [9] (Dhanji J). 2. Fourthly, in issuing a show cause summons, Dhanji J stated in Education Secretary v AEU [2021] at [8] that: My role in determining the summons before me is not, in any way, concerned with the merits of the defendant's action in the broader sense. Nor am I concerned with the determination of a breach or what consequences ought to flow from any such breach. As Dhanji J, correctly in my view, emphasises, the Court is to consider whether there is "at least to a prima facie level" a contravention of dispute orders. The conclusion that must be reached by the Court before issuing a show cause summons is that there is, properly, an alleged contravention such that the Court should summon the alleged contravener "to show cause why the Supreme Court should not take action for the contravention" (emphasis added).
In my view, these four features point strongly against the notion that the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with applications under s 139 is conditioned on the existence of valid dispute orders at law. If that were the case, an inquiry would need to be conducted at the stage of issuing a show cause summons that the alleged contravention is of orders that are legally valid dispute orders. This is because it is the "first duty" of a court to be satisfied that it has jurisdiction to decide the matter before it: Federated Engine-Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1911) 12 CLR 398 at 415 (Griffith CJ) ("FEFAA v Broken Hill"); Justice Mark Leeming, Authority to Decide: The Law of Jurisdiction in Australia (Federation Press, 2nd ed, 2020) at pp 37ff. It is of "utmost importance" that jurisdictional issues are raised and dealt with at the earliest available opportunity: Re Culleton (2017) 340 ALR 550; [2017] HCA 3 at [23] (Gageler J); see also Stevenson v Barham (1977) 136 CLR 190 at 202 (Mason and Jacobs JJ, as Mason CJ then was, with whom Barwick CJ agreed); Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, New South Wales v Librus Pty Ltd t/as Dymocks Parramatta (2001) 103 IR 390; [2001] NSWIRComm 46 at 393-394 [11] (Walton J, Vice-President, Hungerford J and Commissioner Patterson). If a valid dispute order were a condition of the jurisdiction of the Court, that issue should be decided before the Court were to exercise any of its powers under s 139, including issuing a show cause summons.
The Court is plainly ill-suited to decide the legal validity of a dispute order in an ex parte proceeding in circumstances where there are only limited documents before it and where the purpose of that proceeding is merely to issue process. This reinforces the construction that the terms of s 139 of the Act do not make the jurisdiction to "deal" with an alleged contravention conditional on the existence of legally valid dispute orders.
Furthermore, the jurisdiction to take one or more of the actions in s 139(3) is only enlivened "after hearing any person who answered the [show cause] summons to show cause and considering any other relevant matter". This only highlights that the jurisdiction of the Court in dealing with an application under s 139 of the Act is not conditioned on the existence of valid dispute orders. It is only after the show cause summons has been issued that the alleged contravener is to be heard on the validity of the dispute orders that they allegedly contravened.
Section 139(3)(a) provides that one of the actions that this Court may take is to "dismiss the matter if it finds that the dispute order was not contravened or if it finds that the circumstances were such that the Supreme Court should take no action on the contravention". If it is established that the dispute orders were only purported orders in fact, and not valid orders at law, then the proper course would be to dismiss the matter under that provision because there was no contravention in the circumstances and the Court should take no action. In my view, s 139(3)(a) has the opposite effect to the provisions that excited the outcome in Dyldam Developments.
The defendant submits that it is "inherent" in Pt 2 of Ch 3 of the Act, which contains ss 137-139 of the Act, that those provisions refer to legally valid dispute orders. That argument is unpersuasive. As extracted above, s 137 merely deals with the "kinds" of dispute orders that can be made by the Commission in arbitration proceedings. This is akin to giving a broad definition of what orders would fall under the meaning of "dispute order". Section 138 deals with matters including who dispute orders can be made against and what the orders must identify or state. This section explains the conditions for valid dispute orders. In my view, there is nothing in ss 137 or 138 that support or require the conclusion that the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by s 139 of the Act is conditioned on legally valid dispute orders.
In my view, the legislative provisions in s 48K of the HB Act are readily and clearly distinguishable to those in s 139 of the Act. There is no provision like s 48K(7) that expressly denies jurisdiction to this Court unless a condition is met.
I raise one further point that was raised by White JA in Dyldam Developments as a distinguishing feature between that case and Sudi. In Dyldam Certificates, the interim certificates bore a "mark of invalidity on their face": at [62]. In contrast, Warren CJ stated in Sudi that the Director's decision bore "no brand of invalidity upon its forehead": at [23].
Both the February and March Orders themselves bore no brand or mark of invalidity on their face or forehead. On their face, the February and March Orders appeared to comply with the requirements in ss 137 and 138 of the Act. It was only when evidence of what occurred in the arbitration proceedings were before the Court (including the transcript) was closely examined that the errors suggested by the defendant can be seen.
The view I have taken is consistent with the observations of Marks J in Franklins v NUW at 295, which states as follows: In circumstances where prima facie the application to deal with an alleged contravention of a dispute order is made by a person other than a person described in s 139(1), or in circumstances where the matters referred to cannot on their face involve an alleged contravention of a dispute order, is the Commission nevertheless required to issue a summons to show cause, or is it permissible for the Commission to consider at that stage whether there is, at least prima facie, an arguable case that s 139(1) has been satisfied, or should some other test apply? Save for the observations which I make below about the inherent or implied power or jurisdiction of this Commission to deal with an abuse of process, I have formed the view that provided that the Commission has before it an application dealing with an alleged contravention of a dispute order and that application is made by a person of the kind referred to in s 139(1) the Commission is required to issue a summons to show cause. [Emphasis added.]
My view is also consistent with the jurisdiction of courts in criminal proceedings albeit, as noted above, proceedings under s 139 of the Act are civil proceedings. In criminal proceedings, "the indictment is the originating process that invests the court with jurisdiction": Swansson v R; Henry v R (2007) 69 NSWLR 406; [2007] NSWCCA 67 at 432 [164] (Simpson J, as her Honour then was); see also R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; [2005] NSWCCA 281; R v Halmi (2005) 62 NSWLR 263; [2005] NSWCCA 2. Where an accused prosecuted on indictment makes a defence is that the legislation creating the offence is invalid, that is a collateral attack in the Ousley sense: Enid Campbell "Collateral Challenge of the Validity of Governmental Action" (1998) 24 Monash University Law Review 272 at 273.
I agree with the prosecutor that, to use the words of McHugh J in Ousley, the "primary object" of proceedings under s 139 of the Act "is not the setting aside or modification" of the Commission's dispute orders. It is "merely an incident in determining other issues".
The validity of the dispute orders does not go to this Court's jurisdiction. Given that the primary object of this matter is to determine what action the Supreme Court should take for an alleged contravention of a dispute order, not to scrutinise the validity of the dispute order, the attacks are an incident in determining other issues.
It follows that I reject the submission of the defendant that the legal validity of the dispute orders is an issue as to the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant's challenges on the validity of the dispute orders should be characterised as collateral attacks.

[22]

Section 179 of the Act Does Not Prevent Collateral Attack for Decisions that Involve Jurisdictional Error

I turn next to consider whether s 179 of the Act prevents a collateral attack.
In Breckler, the High Court suggested that a strongly worded privative clause might oust collateral challenge but this was not decided: see Public Service Association of South Australia Inc v Industrial Relations Commission (SA) (2012) 249 CLR 398; [2012] HCA 25 at 424 [66] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ, as Kiefel CJ then was).
Section 179 of the Act limits the power of courts and tribunals to review decisions of the Commission. That section relevantly states: 179 Finality of decisions (1) A decision of the Commission (however constituted) is final and may not be appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called into question by any court or tribunal. (2) Proceedings of the Commission (however constituted) may not be prevented from being brought, prevented from being continued, terminated or called into question by any court or tribunal. (3) This section extends to proceedings brought in a court or tribunal in respect of a decision or proceedings of the Commission on an issue of fact or law. … (5) This section extends to proceedings brought in a court or tribunal for any relief or remedy, whether by order in the nature of prohibition, certiorari or mandamus, by injunction or declaration or otherwise. … (7) In this section - decision includes any award or order.
Privative clauses, like s 179 of the Act, that impose limits on the granting by this Court of remedies in the nature of judicial review from industrial tribunals in New South Wales have a long history: see, eg, s 301(2) of the 1991 Act; Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 (NSW) (repealed) s 84(1)(a) ("the 1940 Act"); Government and Related Employees' Tribunal Act 1980 (NSW) (repealed) s 43(2) ("GREAT Act"). As Kirby P (as his Honour then was) explained in Cepus v Industrial Court of New South Wales and Anor (1995) 60 IR 113 ("Cepus") at 114: Such limitations are in keeping with the high standing of the Industrial Court, recognised by express statutory provision, the specialist nature of its jurisdiction and the often sensitive, urgent and difficult matters with which it must deal.
Indeed, his Honour noted that the Court of Appeal had been deferential to decisions of the then-Industrial Court notwithstanding the fact that the Court of Appeal had the power to review for jurisdictional error: see Walker v Industrial Court of New South Wales (1994) 53 IR 121. Kirby P stated that decisions that there is "no business of [the Court of Appeal] to disturb" a decision of the Industrial Court that followed "a long-established practice of the Industrial Court and its predecessor": Cepus at 115.
In Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1 ("Kirk"), the High Court held that the supervisory role of State Supreme Courts exercised through the grant of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus (and habeas corpus) was at the time of Federation, and is today, a "defining characteristic" of those courts: at 580-581 [97]-[98] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ, as Kiefel CJ then was). At 581 [100], the Court held: Legislation which would take from a State Supreme Court power to grant relief on account of jurisdictional error is beyond State legislative power. Legislation which denies the availability of relief for non-jurisdictional error of law appearing on the face of the record is not beyond power.
In essence, the Court held that judicial review for jurisdictional error by State executive decision-makers and inferior courts may not be validly circumscribed or circumvented by privative clauses. In relation to s 179 of the Act, the Court held at 582-583 [104]-[105]: [104] In its terms, s 179(1), read with s 179(5), could be read in a manner which would speak to the present case. But those provisions could be read as engaged only if the expression "[a] decision of the [Industrial Court]" were read as including a decision of the Industrial Court that was attended by jurisdictional error. That is, the provisions could be engaged only if "decision" includes a decision of the Industrial Court made outside the limits on its power. "Decision" should not be read in that way. [105] In the form in which s 179 stood at the times relevant to this matter, the contrast between the references in s 179(1) to a "decision", and in s 179(4) to a "purported decision", would point away from reading the provisions of s 179(1) as engaged with respect to what purports to be a decision of the Industrial Court but is a decision attended by jurisdictional error. Determining the significance to be given to the contrast evident in the form of the Act as it stood at relevant times would require examination of the history of the section, and the successive introduction of the various elements that yielded the section in its relevant form. It is, however, not necessary to undertake that task, because even without any internal indication that "decision" should be read as a decision of the Industrial Court that was made within the limits of the powers given to the Industrial Court to decide questions, that reading of the section follows from the constitutional considerations that have been mentioned. Section 179, on its proper construction, does not preclude the grant of certiorari for jurisdictional error. To grant certiorari on that ground is not to call into question a "decision" of the Industrial Court as that term is used in s 179(1).
In its then form, s 179 of the Act pertained to both the Industrial Court and the Industrial Relations Commission. Given the abolition of the Industrial Court, s 179 now only deals with decisions of the Commission. That change is not a matter of any materiality and the High Court's analysis of s 179 in the form it was when Kirk was decided should be applied to s 179 in its current form.
Accordingly, in judicial review proceedings, it is within the power of this Court to determine whether orders made by the Commission are purported decisions attended by jurisdictional error or decisions within jurisdiction. But if the Court concludes that they are decisions within power and not infected with jurisdictional error, even if they involve non-jurisdictional errors, s 179 of the Act denies the availability of an "order in the nature of prohibition, certiorari or mandamus, by injunction or declaration or otherwise". In the event that a decision is infected with jurisdictional error, it is not a decision to which s 179 applies.
It follows from the High Court's construction in Kirk that s 179 of the Act has nothing to say about the availability of collateral review where a decision is infected with jurisdictional error. Although this issue was left open in Education Secretary v AEU at [229]-[230], I am of the view that the proper construction of s 179 of the Act does not evince a legislative intention to prevent collateral attack on putative jurisdictional error.

[24]

The Historical Approach

Historically, collateral challenge of decisions of administrative bodies commonly occurred in English courts before the modern development and conceptualisation of administrative law. In Amnon Rubinstein's book, Jurisdiction and Illegality (Clarendon Press, 1965) ("Rubinstein"), it was stated at p 54 that: The distinction between direct and collateral methods of attack has been known since the early formative periods of the common law. Collateral proceedings are nowadays regarded as an exceptional way of establishing the invalidity of a decision … Yet, in the past, this method constituted the regular and, very often, the only remedy available.
The old central common law courts conducted collateral review "without question" on the validity of orders made by justices of the peace and by inferior courts in actions for trespass, replevin, and false imprisonment: see, eg, Commins v Massam (1642) 82 ER 473 at 473 (Heath J). It was noted that "[b]y the common law the regularity of the proceedings under a summary jurisdiction may be questioned in a collateral action": William Paley, The Law and Practice of Summary Convictions on Penal Statutes by Justices of the Peace (S. Sweet, 2nd ed, 1827) at page 330, citing Terry v Huntington (1679) 145 ER 557.
The Court of King's Bench (whose jurisdiction was inherited by this Court under s 3 of the Australian Courts Act 1828 (Imp)) regularly examined the legality of decisions of Sewer Commissioners in actions of replevin and trespass brought against them: see Harold Weintraub, "English Origins of Judicial Review by Prerogative Writ: Certiorari and Mandamus" (1963) 9 New York Law Forum 478 at 505-508.
This history of collateral review in which the validity of the decision of an inferior court or executive decision-maker was impugned in tort cases before the development of modern administrative law was acknowledged in A v New South Wales (2007) 230 CLR 500; [2007] HCA 10 at 523 [94] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ) as follows: At a time before the development of what now is known as administrative law, significant questions of public law, and of abuse of power by public officials, were determined as issues in tort actions. What may be understood as echoes of the administrative law principles respecting improper purpose in the exercise of a statutory power may sometimes be heard in the reference in the tort of malicious prosecution to improper purposes of prosecutors
Early decisions of the High Court also allowed collateral challenges. In Widgee Shire Council v Bonney (1907) 4 CLR 977, the High Court considered the validity of delegated legislation that was challenged collaterally. There was no issue that the validity of the delegated legislation in question could be collaterally challenged although Isaacs J opined at 985-986 that a "person charged with contravention of a by-law may, as in this case, defend himself if he can demonstrate its invalidity". Collateral review was similarly entertained by the High Court in Dignan v Australian Steamships Pty Ltd (1931) 45 CLR 188.

[25]

Subsequent Developments in Australia

Subsequent decisions, however, appear to have attempted to narrow the scope and availability of collateral review. This has occurred at the same time as the body of administrative law was growing and developing.
In Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94, the defendant sought to impugn the validity of a warrant under which incriminating evidence had been collected against him. Mason CJ and Toohey J held at 105-106 that the admissibility of evidence in a criminal proceeding turned on the "existence of a warrant" and that the trial judge ought to "determine merely whether the warrant was regularly granted by the Supreme Court". Their Honours emphasised that the issue before the trial judge was not one on the "sufficiency of grounds for granting" the warrant: at 105.
In Ousley, three Justices in separate judgments suggested that the Court in Murphy had confined the scope of collateral challenge to an error appearing on the face of a warrant: at 79 (Toohey J), 87 (Gaudron J), 124 (Gummow J). McHugh J, however, would have broadened the scope of collateral challenge and argued at 100 that an administrative act is susceptible to collateral challenge on the broad basis of jurisdictional error.
Following these decisions, Australian courts have allowed collateral review in some circumstances but not allowed it in other circumstances. There are many examples but I highlight several significant decisions.
In Federal Airports Corporation v Aerolineas Argentinas (1997) 76 FCR 582, the Full Court of the Federal Court held it was open to a number of airlines to bring an action for the recovery of money they paid in response to an invalid administrative determination without the airlines first having that determination set aside.
In Jacobs v OneSteel, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia held that the Workers Compensation Tribunal could determine a challenge to the validity of its rules.
In Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597; [2002] HCA 11 ("Bhardwaj"), the majority of the High Court held that the Immigration Review Tribunal was permitted to disregard its own purported decision vitiated by jurisdictional error and to remake the decision afresh. The Tribunal could do so even in the absence of any order by a court of competent jurisdiction quashing the original purported decision or declaring it to be invalid. As Warren CJ explained in Sudi at 566 [30]: In coming to this conclusion, the majority of the High Court must have accepted that the tribunal could inquire into, and decide for itself, whether its original purported decision was a nullity. That is to say, the majority must have accepted that the tribunal could, in effect, carry out a collateral review of its own decision.
In Police v Stacy (2016) 125 SASR 50; [2016] SASC 54, the Court of Criminal Appeal for South Australia held that a Magistrate can entertain collateral challenges raised by the defendant to defend the prosecution by submitting that barring orders imposed by the police on the basis that it is said to be invalid on its face, not supported by the relevant Act or on the ground of Wednesbury unreasonableness: at 73 [99]-[100] (Parker J). This followed an earlier decision that held that a warrant may be subject to collateral challenge on the grounds of unreasonableness in the Wednesbury sense: Question of Law Reserved on Acquittal (No 5 of 1999) (2000) 76 SASR 356; [2000] SASC 51 at [27]-[30], [153] (Mullighan and Williams JJ).
On the other hand, in Krulow v Glamorgan Spring Bay Council (2013) 23 Tas R 264; [2013] TASFC 11, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania held that an order of the Resource Management and Appeal Tribunal could not be collaterally challenged in the Magistrates' Court in criminal proceedings. This was so, despite the defendants arguing that the Tribunal's orders were infected by jurisdictional error, because the relevant legislation had created a direct appeal mechanism to the Supreme Court from a Tribunal order, the Tribunal itself had no enforcement powers and, as a matter of policy, a collateral challenge could undermine public confidence in the authoritative status of the Tribunal's orders: at 282-283, 299-300 (Estcourt J with whom Blow CJ and Porter J agreed).

[26]

Consideration

In Education Secretary v AEU [2022], I held that it was open for the defendant to bring a collateral challenge subject to discretionary issues raised by the prosecutor: at [225]. I had left open and did not deal with the issue of whether the Court should decline, as a matter of discretion, to deal with the validity of the orders in issue in that case because it was not fully argued.
I agree with the submission of the prosecutor that the primary method to attack the validity of the dispute orders is by appealing (with leave) to the Full Bench or by seeking judicial review. It should be stated that collateral attacks in civil and criminal proceedings require a judicial review-like process. It requires courts and tribunals to engage in the type of legal supervision that is typically undertaken through formal judicial review. As Warren CJ stated in Sudi, collateral challenge could require a "trial within a trial", which was inconsistent with the legislative intent of establishing VCAT as a cheap and efficient forum for specific disputes.
Allowing collateral challenges would thus create various challenges and difficulties. In Hinton Demolitions Pty Ltd v Lower (No 2) (1971) 1 SASR 512, Bray CJ stated at 520 that there could be "evil consequences which might result if the nullity of an unknown quantity of administrative acts can be urged by anyone at any time in any form of proceeding in which they are incidentally in question". His Honour also drew attention to the "apparent contradiction" in the notion that even when a court may exercise its discretion to refuse prerogative relief (because the applicant has in some way disqualified themselves from relief, relief is futile or some other reasons) yet nevertheless the disputed order or adjudication may still remain a nullity which can be asserted by anyone in any proceedings in which its validity is incidentally called in question: at 521. The scepticism of collateral challenge was also shared by Wells J, who thought that collateral challenge should only be available where Parliament has "unequivocally authorise[d]" it: at 549.
In my view, freely allowing collateral challenge in all cases is not desirable. As noted by Bray CJ, collateral challenge may provide a means of circumventing limitations on judicial review, such as time limits for commencing proceedings (see, eg, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 59.10(1) ("UCPR"), which requires must be commenced within 3 months of the date of the decision but leaves a discretion on the Court to extend time). Relevantly, the administrative body whose decision is challenged may not be a party to the proceeding in which its decision is collaterally challenged (cf UCPR r 59.3(3)) and would have no opportunity to defend its decision. Furthermore, not every party who is interested in maintaining the decision (who would ordinarily be required to be joined as a defendant: UCPR r 59.3(2)) will necessarily be a party to, or even be notified about, the proceedings where the decision is collaterally challenged. This could potentially raise serious concerns with procedural fairness. For other criticisms, see generally Enid Campbell "Collateral Challenge of the Validity of Governmental Action" (1998) 24 Monash University Law Review 272 at 274-275.
On the other hand, there are obvious benefits to allowing collateral review. Denying collateral challenge would risk the fragmentation and unnecessary duplication of proceedings and there is no suggestion that inferior courts are not competent to deal with difficult questions of validity: Ousley at 147-148 (Kirby J); Jacobs v OneSteel at 575 [18] (Debelle J). The fragmentation and duplication of proceedings can create unnecessary expense and delay.
Aside from the benefits, a presumption in favour of allowing collateral challenges can be justified by the entitlement to vindicate legal rights. This was the reasoning of Gummow J and McHugh J, writing separately, in Ousley in the case of a criminal accused: at 100-105 (McHugh J); 120 (Gummow J). In Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143, the House of Lords upheld a presumption in favour of collateral challenge on that very basis. Lord Irvine LC said: It is well recognised to be important of the rule of law and the preservation of liberty that individuals affected by legal measures promulgated by executive public bodies should have a fair opportunity to challenge these measures and to vindicate their rights in court proceedings. There is a strong presumption that Parliament will not legislate to prevent individuals from doing so.
Emeritius Professor Mark Aronson wrote in his article, "Criteria for Restricting Collateral Challenge" (1998) 9 Public Law Review 237: [F]orcing an accused person to take his or her nullity fight to a separate court is fraught with problems in the general run of criminal cases, and invites, rather than avoids, a fragmentation of the criminal process.
It has been emphasised, and I respectfully agree, that the "starting point for determining whether collateral challenge is available is the legislation governing the matter central to the proceedings": Frugtniet v Attorney-General (NSW) (1997) 41 NSWLR 588 at 602 (Beazley JA, as Her Excellency then was) ("Frugtniet"); see also Sudi at 566 [28] (Warren CJ); Krulow at 299 [154] (Estcourt J).
Where the legislation provides a clear answer, it must, of course, be followed. Usually, the legislation does not expressly address the availability of collateral challenge. In most cases, the objects of the Act and provisions relating to the powers and functions of the relevant court or tribunal will be of assistance. However, absent any assistance from the broader legislative regime, the court must decide for itself whether it will entertain the collateral attack.
I respectfully adopt the remarks of Besanko J (with whom Duggan, Vanstone and Layton JJ agreed) in Jacobs v OneSteel at 594 [95] as follows: It may be that, leaving aside cases where a statutory provision provides a clear answer, the common law will develop to the point whereby a court or tribunal in which a collateral challenge is raised has a discretion to entertain the collateral challenge, or to decline to do so and invite the party raising the challenge to institute judicial review proceedings in the court with jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings.
In my view, these remarks are consistent with the weight of authority on collateral attack in Australia; the development of a body of administrative law that reduces the need for the availability of collateral review; and, the recognition following Kirk that the Commonwealth Constitution entrenches a minimum level of judicial review for decisions of State and Commonwealth executive bodies and inferior courts.
In the authorities surveyed above, various distinctions have been suggested to distinguish between circumstances where a collateral review is allowed and when it is not allowed. In Ousley, McHugh J proposed at 99-100 a distinction based on whether decisions are made within or outside jurisdiction. Bray CJ suggested in Hinton that it would depend on whether they are "void" or "voidable" decisions: at 523. In Jacobs v OneSteel, Besanko J placed emphasis on whether they were "simple" ultra vires errors or whether they required more substantial evidence: at 591 [82].
Three Justices of the High Court suggested that collateral review is available where the error appears on the face of the record: Ousley at 79 (Toohey J), 87 (Gaudron J), 124 (Gummow J). This suggestion has been seriously doubted in subsequent cases: Australian Crime Commission v Marrapodi (2012) 42 WAR 351; [2012] WASCA 103 at 381 [138] (Allanson J); Morrison v Milner (2009) 181 IR 443; [2009] NSWIRComm 57 at 461 [63] (Boland J, President, Kavanagh and Backman JJ). The Court of Appeal in Frugtniet rejected an attempt to restrict collateral review to facial invalidity.
In my view, there is no single test: Zweck v Town of Gawler (2015) 124 SASR 319; [2015] SASCFC 172 at 333 [73] (Blue J). In Emeritius Professor Enid Campbell's article, "Collateral Challenge of the Validity of Governmental Action" (1998) 24 Monash University Law Review 272, she referred to what was said by Sir William Wade in his book, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 5th ed, 1982) at 330: [P]robably … there can be no hard and fast rules for determining when the court may or may not allow collateral challenge. In some situations it will be suitable and in others it will be unsuitable, and no classification of the cases is likely to prove exhaustive.
The better approach is a multi-factorial test that considers and balances the circumstances of each case. A non-exhaustive list of considerations was set out by Besanko J in Jacobs v OneSteel at 593-594 [93] as follows: I do not think there is any doubt that in some cases there are good reasons to allow a collateral challenge and in other cases there are good reasons to deny it. On occasions there may be cases in which a statutory provision will provide a clear answer to the question whether a collateral challenge is permitted in a particular case. Other possible factors which might be relevant in deciding that question have been discussed in the authorities and in the academic literature. I refer to two articles for a helpful discussion of the relevant factors: M Aronson, "Criteria for Restricting Collateral Challenge" (1998) 9 Public Law Review 237 and Professor Enid Campbell, "Collateral Challenge of the Validity of Governmental Action" (1998) 24 Monash University Law Review 272. The factors identified include the following: 1 Are the grounds of challenge likely to involve the adducing of substantial evidence? 2 If a collateral challenge is permitted, will all proper parties be heard before the court or tribunal in which the collateral challenge is to be heard? 3 In the particular case, does the allowing of a collateral challenge by‑pass the protective mechanisms associated with judicial review proceedings such as the rules as to standing, delay and other discretionary considerations? 4 Is there a statutory provision that bears in one way or another on the question of whether a collateral challenge should be permitted? 5 Is the issue raised by the collateral challenge clearly answered by authority?; 6 Are there other cases pending which raise the same issue? 7 (Possibly) Is there a more appropriate forum in terms of expertise and perhaps court procedures such that a collateral challenge should not be permitted?
However, Besanko J opined that such a discretion has not been recognised in the common law. His Honour stated at 594-595 [94]-[95]: [94] It may be that, leaving aside cases where a statutory provision provides a clear answer, the common law will develop to the point whereby a court or tribunal in which a collateral challenge is raised has a discretion to entertain the collateral challenge, or to decline to do so and invite the party raising the challenge to institute judicial review proceedings in the court with jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings. … The discretion would be exercised by reference to the factors identified in [93] above. … [95] At all events, the formulation of a general principle (if there is to be one) as to when the validity of government action, whether it be legislative or administrative in character, may be challenged collaterally must be reserved for the High Court.
The obligation to act "expeditiously" in s 139(1) of the Act does favour against allowing collateral review. However, in my view, the statutory mandate to act "expeditiously", without more, does not evince a statutory intention to completely deny this Court the power to entertain collateral review when dealing with an alleged contravention of dispute orders. In my view, the statutory edict in s 139(1) of the Act to act expeditiously provides a basis for a discretion to decline to entertain a collateral attack. That discretion should be exercised if hearing and determining the attack would cause significant and undue delay or disruption to the orderly disposition of the proceedings such that the Court could not fulfil the mandate imposed by Parliament. This would particularly be the case if the grounds raised by the party bringing the collateral attack are devoid of merit. In exercising that discretion, this Court should have regard to the factors outlined by Besanko J in Jacobs v OneSteel at 593-594 [93] but recognising that that is not an exhaustive list of factors and other matters may be relevant.
As it was not argued by the parties, I consider it unnecessary and undesirable to decide in this case whether courts have a more general discretion to decline to hear and determine a collateral attack, including whether it may be sourced from the inherent power that comes with the status of this Court as a superior court of record (NH v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) (2016) 260 CLR 546; [2016] HCA 33 at 579-580 [67], 581 [69] (French CJ, Kiefel and Bell JJ, as Kiefel CJ then was); PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd (2015) 258 CLR 1; [2015] HCA 36 at 17 [37] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Gordon JJ, as Kiefel CJ then was)) or the implied power of inferior courts (TKWY v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46 at 138 [44] (Gaudron J); R v Mosely (1992) 28 NSWLR 735 at 739 (Gleeson CJ with whom Kirby P, as his Honour then was, and Mahoney JA agreed)) to prevent abuses of its processes. That question would have to wait another day.

[27]

On Balance, this Court should Collaterally Review the Commission's Orders

The dispute orders of are administrative decisions because the Commission does not exercise judicial power: Australian Salaried Medical Officers' Federation (NSW) v Secretary of Health [2018] NSWIRComm 1052 at [27] (Commissioner Seymour); Industrial Relations Secretary v Public Service Association and Professional Officers Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales (2021) 303 IR 322; [2021] NSWSC 160 at [114]-[115] (Rothman J) ("Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2021]"). Ousley and Breckler make it clear that administrative decisions can generally be collaterally challenged in a court: Sudi at 565 [26] (Warren CJ).
The challenge in this case was not an attack that went to the face of the orders but required evidence of the arbitration proceedings before the Commission. The evidence primarily relied upon and argued between the parties was the transcript of both the First and Second Disputes, which was not a substantial amount.
I note that one factor that weighs against allowing collateral attack in proceedings brought under s 139 of the Act is the fact that this Court cannot make orders as to the parties' costs: s 355E(3) of the Act. In contrast, costs may be awarded in judicial review proceedings. However, I am satisfied that this is not a significant issue because the additional evidence was not substantial.
The parties that have an interest in the Commission's orders are the prosecutor and defendant. It is noteworthy that the Commission is not joined as a party to these proceedings. In ordinary judicial review proceedings, the Commission would be required to be joined as a defendant, but not as the first defendant unless there is no other defendant: UCPR r 59.3(4); Practice Note SC CL 3 at [13]. The reason for this is clear: if the Commission is not joined as a party, the Commission will not be bound by any order made requiring it to take further steps: Campbelltown City Council v Vegan (2006) 67 NSWLR 372; [2006] NSWCA 284 at 382 [55] (Basten JA with whom Handley and McColl JJA agreed) ("Vegan").
It would be highly undesirable to review decisions of the Commission without that body being a party to the proceeding: see Transport for NSW v Chapoterera [2022] NSWSC 976 at [39] (Walton J). However, I am satisfied that nothing turns on this point because of the principles enunciated in R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13 ("Hardiman"). In Hardiman, Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Aickin and Wilson JJ stated at 35-36: In cases of this kind the usual course is for a tribunal to submit to such order as the court may make. The course which was adopted by the Tribunal in this Court is not one which we would wish to encourage. If a tribunal becomes a protagonist in this Court there is the risk that by so doing it endangers the impartiality which it is expected to maintain in subsequent proceedings which take place if and when relief is granted. The presentation of a case in this Court by a tribunal should be regarded as exceptional and, where it occurs should, in general, be limited to submissions going to the powers and procedures of the Tribunal.
The Hardiman principle is one "which is honoured in relation to every adjudicative tribunal that operates in Australia and its States": XX v Attorney General of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 658 at [50] (Rothman J). The practice of the Commission has been to file a submitting appearance save as to costs when its decisions are impugned on judicial review. In these circumstances, I do not consider that there is prejudice to the Commission or any party to proceed to determine the collateral attack without the Commission as a party.
I have gleaned from the material before me that certain documents were tendered in the arbitration proceedings before the Commission. It appears that some of those documents are not before the Court. Nothing turns on this either. Practice Note SC CL 3, which concerns administrative and industrial law matters in the Common Law Division, does not require that all the evidence before the decision-maker be annexed or exhibited unless there is a direction from the Court to the contrary: see [15]-[19]. In circumstances where there is review for jurisdictional error, the Practice Note requires that the plaintiff to file material that constitutes the "record", and any additional material must have a connection between the alleged jurisdictional error.
The evidentiary material before me includes the notification made under s 130 of the Act, which is the initiating document in the Commission, and the terms of the impugned order. This material constitutes the "record" as that term is understood in Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 180-183 (Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ, as Brennan CJ then was). The evidence before the Commission and transcript of the proceedings do not form part of the "record" unless they are incorporated. Although the reasons of the "court or tribunal for its ultimate determination" is included in the "record" by virtue of s 69(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) ("Supreme Court Act"), it is common ground between the parties that the Commission gave no reasons.
I note that the February Orders were made on 14 February 2022. It appears to me that the earliest time that the issue of validity of the February Orders was raised to the Court was in the written submissions of the defendant filed on 27 May 2022. (At the hearing, counsel for the defendant stated that the issue of validity may have been raised in the directions hearing before Beech-Jones CJ at CL but this does not appear from the face of the transcript of that proceeding.) Assuming that the issue of validity was only first raised on 27 May 2022, this is more than three months from the date that the orders were made by about one fortnight. Nevertheless, I do not consider there to be any prejudice or significance from this. Having regard to the principles stated by Pepper J in in Wingecarribee Shire Council v Uri Turgeman trading as Uri T Design [2018] NSWLEC 146 at [34], I consider that there would be a high likelihood that an extension of time would be granted had a judicial review application been properly filed on 27 May 2022. I am satisfied that allowing a collateral challenge in this case does not by‑pass the protective mechanisms associated with judicial review proceedings. And I am satisfied that the prosecutor has had an opportunity to be heard on the validity of the Commission's orders and is not prejudiced by this delay. The prosecutor did not submit to the contrary.
I agree with the prosecutor that the statutory provisions providing for an appeal to the Full Bench would ordinarily weigh against the availability of ordinary judicial review proceedings (Canberra Cleaners Pty Ltd v Commissioner of ACT Revenue (2008) 336 FLR 1; [2018] ACTSC 208 at 19-20 [90]-[98] (McWilliam AsJ; Hill v King (1993) 31 NSWLR 654 at 657 (Clarke, Handley and Sheller JJA)) and this weighs very strongly against allowing collateral attack. However, it is also relevant that an appeal to the Full Bench is subject to a grant of leave. As discussed above, leave is not automatically granted by an applicant that merely raises, without more, jurisdictional issues: Knowles v Anglican Church at 381-382 (Walton J, Vice-President, Glynn J and Commissioner Patterson). Even where appeal grounds that can, if made out, amount to jurisdictional errors are raised, it should not be presumed that leave would be automatically granted. I consider that the prospect of the Full Bench granting leave to appeal after the effect of the dispute orders have ended is low.
In this respect, the raising of a collateral attack in proceedings under s 139 of the Act should be strongly discouraged. A party aggrieved by a decision of the Commission should seek an appeal or review by the primary means of doing so. I understand that dispute orders of the kind in this case are generally made on the eve of proposed industrial action with limited time to seek leave to appeal or bring judicial review proceedings. But this does not excuse the failure to do those acts and then raise a collateral attack once any contravention proceedings are initiated. One potential avenue is that judicial review proceedings and contravention proceedings are commenced at around the same time and this Court can, if appropriate having regard to the statutory mandate to act expeditiously, join the two proceedings so that they are heard simultaneously.
It is clear that any judicial review proceeding would be commenced in this Court. This Court has an inherent supervisory function and has the power to make orders in the nature of prerogative writs and grant declaratory and injunctive relief. In relation to factor (7) in Besanko J's list, this Court is the most appropriate forum to determine the validity of the Commission's orders.
It is relevant that the errors raised by the defendant may amount to jurisdictional error such that, if made out, the decision of the Commission may be "properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all": Bhardwaj at 614-615 [51] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ). If the defendant were, after these proceedings have concluded, to challenge the validity of the dispute orders by judicial review proceedings, they would be before the Common Law Division of this Court in any case.
It is also relevant that, if collateral attack were not allowed, the defendant may have monetary penalties imposed against them in circumstances where, if the attack was allowed, they may not.
The grounds relied on by the defendant raise important issues for the Commission and its practices and procedures. The issue as to whether the Commission is under an obligation to give reasons is an especially important one. I observe that, since June this year, dispute orders have been made on at least five occasions: Health Secretary v New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association [2022] NSWIRComm 1071 (Commissioner Sloan) ("Health Secretary v NSWNMA [2022] NSWIRComm 1071"); Transport Secretary v AWU (Commissioner Sloan); Secretary Department of Education v Australian Education Union of New South Wales Teachers Federation Branch [2022] NSWIRComm 1051 (Commissioner O'Sullivan) (and on appeal in Education Secretary v NSWTF [2022] NSWIRComm 1049 (Chief Commissioner Constant, Commissioner Sloan, and Commissioner Webster)); Health Secretary v NSWMNA [2022] NSWIRComm 1047 (Commissioner Sloan); Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2022] (Commissioner Sloan). On each occasion, the Commission has made orders with great urgency and published reasons for decision. Thus, resolution of the alleged errors can have significant implications for industrial dispute proceedings in the Commission.
On balance, the discretionary factors favour allowing the defendant to raise their collateral attack on the dispute orders. I now turn to the merits of those grounds.

[29]

Failure to Give Reasons

The defendant submitted that, although there is no express obligation in the Act on the Commission to give reasons, there was an implied statutory duty on the Commissioner to give reasons for three reasons. 1. First, as an appeal lies to the Full Bench against an order made by the Commission under s 187(1) of the Act, it is necessary in order for a party to contest a decision that the Commission give reasons for its decision. Without such reasons, it will be difficult, and perhaps impossible, for an appellant to establish a House v The King error. It was submitted that New South Wales Fire Brigade Employees Union and Fire and Rescue NSW on behalf of the Director Public Employment [2012] NSWIRComm 1002 ("FBEU v FRNSW [2012]") recognised that a duty to give reasons existed in the context of making dispute orders but accepted that they need not be elaborate or lengthy. 2. Secondly, the Commission is obliged to act in a quasi-judicial manner and afford parties procedural fairness. In seriously contested cases, the Commissioner was required to give reasons that disclosed the steps involved in the reasoning leading to the making of dispute orders. Reliance was placed on Lord v Flight Centre Ltd (No 2) (2006) 156 IR 420; [2006] NSWIRComm 282 ("Lord v Flight Centre (No 2)"). 3. Thirdly, the Commissioner was required to provide reasons as a result of the fact that his decision affected the rights of the Association, its officers and members and because the proceedings before him were adversarial in nature and involved conflicting submissions and evidence.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that a failure by an administrative decision-maker to comply with an obligation to give reasons for their decision constitutes jurisdictional error. Mr Boncardo relied on Brereton JA's judgment in Li v Attorney General for New South Wales (2019) 99 NSWLR 630; [2019] NSWCA 95 at [152]-[153] and [159] ("Li v A-G") which concluded that a failure to give adequate reasons, where there was a duty to do so, was a species of jurisdictional error. Counsel for the defendant submitted that this Court should follow Brereton JA's analysis hold that a failure to give reasons, where an administrative decision-maker is obliged to give reasons for decision, will constitute jurisdictional error on the basis that the decision-maker will have constructively failed to exercise their jurisdiction, as they would have failed to properly perform their decision-making functions, conduct the proceeding in accordance with proper process and bring an independent and impartial mind to bear on the application before them.

[32]

Failure to Give Reasons

The prosecutor accepted that no oral or written reasons were given by the Commissioner but submitted that the Commission was not under an obligation to give reasons for the following reasons: 1. A requirement that the Commission gives reasons before such orders will fall within jurisdiction is at odds with the objects in s 3 of the Act and the provisions in s 162(2)(a) of the Act (and the other matters in ss 162 and 163 of the Act more broadly); and 2. Nothing in the Act explicitly or implicitly requires the making of dispute orders to be accompanied by reasons. Where the Act requires decisions to be recorded, it is expressly mandated. Section 177(2) of the Act expressly permits (but does not mandate) that a decision may be reduced to writing.
The prosecutor also submitted that: 1. The Commissioner's failure to give reasons was in the context of the urgency of the matters brought to the Commission; 2. There is no evidence that the defendant ever sought reasons, which is a step that the defendant could clearly and easily have taken, but did not take; and 3. The defendant does not explain how the evidence and submissions in the arbitration proceedings "would have altered, in any way, the public interest in making the dispute orders, in light of the evidence and submissions made by the Prosecutor as to the disruption [that] the strikes would have, and the risks posed to the health and safety of the public and employees of the Prosecutor".
The prosecutor distinguished authorities that imposed requirements on the Commission to give reasons in other contexts, such as unfair dismissal applications, where there is a hearing and usually there is a period of time for reasons to be published. It was submitted that those authorities provide little assistance for dispute orders where time for reserved decisions are usually not possible. It was emphasised that the need for the Commission to act promptly meant that, on the proper reading of the Act, there was no requirement for the Commissioner to provide reasons.
The prosecutor submitted that, on a fair reading of FBEU v FRNSW [2012], the Full Bench did not find that there was a requirement for the Commissioner to give reasons when making dispute orders.
During the hearing, the prosecutor suggested, but did not express a "concluded view", that some of the actions that may be taken by the Commission in arbitration proceedings under s 136 of the Act may require reasons. This included the making or varying of an award under s 136(1)(b) of the Act. The prosecutor suggested that this may be because s 13(1) of the Act requires an award to be in writing. However, it was emphasised that the making of dispute orders under s 136(1)(c) of the Act did not require reasons.
When this last submission was put, I gave counsel for the prosecutor the opportunity to file a note, if she wished, concerning the construction of the Act and why some provisions in s 136(1) of the Act attract a duty to give reasons but others do not. In an email sent by my Associate, I extended that opportunity to the defendant and made clear that notes were to be filed within five calendar days. Neither party filed notes on this matter.

[35]

Public Service Board v Osmond

Mr Osmond was an officer who was employed for many years in the public service applied for an appointment by way of promotion to the vacant position of Chairman of the Local Lands Boards. The Department Head recommended that another applicant be appointed, Mr Osmond appealed to the Public Service Board pursuant to s 116 of the Public Service Act 1979 (NSW) (repealed) ("Public Service Act"). The Board dismissed his appeal. Mr Osmond requested the Board to give reasons. The Board refused.
Mr Osmond then sought declaratory and other relief in the Supreme Court. Hunt J dismissed the matter and held that the Board, in the absence of a statutory requirement to the contrary, is not obliged to give reasons for its decision: Osmond v Public Service Board (NSW) [1983] 1 NSWLR 691 at 698; (1983) 5 IR 238. On appeal, a majority of the Court of Appeal held that the Board was obliged to give reasons and ordered it to do so: Osmond v Public Service Board (NSW) [1984] 3 NSWLR 447 at 468-470 (Kirby P, as his Honour then was), 480-481 (Priestley JA).
The High Court overturned the Court of Appeal's decision. Gibbs CJ (with whom Brennan J, as his Honour then was, and Dawson J, writing separately, agreed) held at 662 that: There is no general rule of the common law, or principle of natural justice, that requires reasons to be given for administrative decisions, even decisions which have been made in the exercise of a statutory discretion and which may adversely affect the interests, or defeat the legitimate or reasonable expectations, of other persons.
After reviewing the authorities, including those relied on by the majority in the Court of Appeal, Gibbs CJ distinguished between the rule of reasons being usually required for judicial decisions and the rule applicable for administrative decisions. Gibbs CJ stated at 667 that: Nevertheless, it is no doubt right to describe the requirement to give reasons, as Mahoney J.A. did in Housing Commission (NSW) v. Tatmar Pastoral Co. [[1983] 3 NSWLR 378 at 386], as "an incident of the judicial process", subject to the qualification that it is a normal but not a universal incident. That does not mean that the requirement is an incident of a process which is not judicial but administrative; there is no justification for regarding rules which govern the exercise of judicial functions as necessarily applicable to administrative functions, which are different in kind. Moreover, the principle that judges and magistrates ought to give reasons in any case in which an appeal lies from the decision provides a quite inadequate basis for the suggested further principle that a body exercising discretionary administrative powers must give reasons to enable persons affected by the exercise of the power to bring proceedings for judicial review.
Gibbs CJ rejected the argument by Kirby P (as his Honour then was) in the Court of Appeal that a duty to give reasons should be enacted to reflect social changes. In the Court of Appeal, Kirby P had drawn on the fact that there were many legislative reforms that, by that time, had required reasons to be given by administrative decision-makers. Gibbs CJ stated at 669: [E]ven if it be agreed that a change such as he suggests would be beneficial, it is a change which the courts ought not to make, because it involves a departure from a settled rule on grounds of policy which should be decided by the legislature and not by the courts[.]
Gibbs CJ agreed (at 670) with the comment of Glass JA, who dissented in the Court of Appeal, as follows: The proposal [i.e. the submission by counsel for Mr. Osmond] would subject New South Wales administrative tribunals to control by the courts in a blunt undiscriminating way as compared with the finely tuned system operating federally. I believe that judicial innovation under these circumstances is not justified.
Wilson J agreed with the conclusion of Gibbs CJ at 671. His Honour also noted (at 673) that the legislation made it clear that the Parliament deliberately refrained from imposing any obligation on the Board to give reasons for a decision on an appeal under s 116 of the Public Service Act. This is because the GREAT Act expressly imposed such an obligation on the Tribunal whilst s 116 of the Public Service Act remained silent. This was notwithstanding that s 116 was amended during the legislative session in which the GREAT Act was enacted.
In taking a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, Wilson J stated at 674: It must have concluded that efficiency and harmony in the higher echelons of the Public Service would be enhanced by having the Board or its delegate keep its reasons to itself and thereby protect the reputations of the protagonists in the sensitive areas of character that a dispute as to relative efficiency might well encompass: cf. Hurt v. Rossall [(1982) 64 FLR 102 at 111]. The scheme is plain. For the great majority of offices, the G.R.E.A.T. Act provides a representative tribunal for the determination of promotion appeals in a manner accepted as being conducive to good industrial relations. For the senior, more sensitive positions, a more limited provision is made for the review of promotional decisions with the overall control remaining firmly in the hands of the Board. For Special Division officers, there is no avenue of review at all.
Further, Deane J said at 675-676 that: Nonetheless, the stage has not been reached in this country where it is a general prima facie requirement of the common law rules of natural justice or procedural fair play that the administrative decision-maker, having extended to persons who might be adversely affected by a decision an adequate opportunity of being heard, is bound to furnish reasons for the exercise of a statutory decision-making power. To the contrary, the ordinary common law position remains that established by the authorities referred to by the Chief Justice in his judgment, namely that where, as a matter of ordinary construction, the relevant statutory provisions do not impose an obligation to give reasons, the rules of natural justice will not remedy the omission.
Subsequent decisions have relied upon a passage of Gibbs CJ that a duty may be found "in special circumstances". His Honour stated at 670 that: However, assuming that in special circumstances natural justice may require reasons to be given, the present is not such a case. The issues before the Board were simple and well defined: which of the two officers had the greater efficiency, and if neither of them had greater efficiency than the other, which was the senior? The respondent had the means of knowing what issues were canvassed on the appeal, and could readily infer whether the Board's conclusion rested on par. (a) or on par. (b) of s. 62(2) of the Act. Neither the provisions of the Act nor the circumstances of the case justified the conclusion that the rules of natural justice required the Board to communicate the reasons for its decision. [Emphasis added.]
Another reference to "special circumstances" can be found in the decision of Deane J at 676 where his Honour stated: On the other hand, it is trite law that the common law rules of natural justice or procedural fair play are neither standardized nor immutable. The procedural consequences of their application depend upon the particular statutory framework within which they apply and upon the exigencies of the particular case. Their content may vary with changes in contemporary practice and standards. That being so, the statutory developments referred to in the judgments of Kirby P. and Priestley J.A. in the Court of Appeal in the present case are conducive to an environment within which the courts should be less reluctant than they would have been in times past to discern in statutory provisions a legislative intent that the particular decision-maker should be under a duty to give reasons or to accept that special circumstances might arise in which contemporary standards of natural justice or procedural fair play demand that an administrative decision-maker provide reasons for a decision to a person whose property, rights or legitimate expectations are adversely affected by it. Where such circumstances exist, statutory provisions conferring the relevant decision-making power should, in the absence of a clear intent to the contrary, be construed so as to impose upon the decision-maker an implied statutory duty to provide such reasons. As has been said however, the circumstances in which natural justice or procedural fair play requires that an administrative decision-maker give reasons for his decision are special, that is to say, exceptional. [Emphasis added.]supreme

[36]

The Approach of the English Courts

The English courts have maintained the orthodox position that there is no general duty to give reasons for administrative decisions but have acknowledged that there may be certain circumstances where reasons are required as an aspect of procedural fairness.
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531, the House of Lords affirmed that there is no general duty to give reasons but held that a duty may "in appropriate circumstances be implied" by asking "[i]s refusal to give reasons fair?": at 564 (Lord Mustill with whom Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Lane, Lord Templeman and Lord Browne-Wilkinson agreed).
The House of Lords held that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in exercising their rather unique power under s 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (UK) to fix the date that a person serving a sentence of life imprisonment might be released on licence, was required to give reasons when the date set differed from the recommendation of the trial judge: at 565 (Lord Mustill with whom Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Lane, Lord Templeman and Lord Browne-Wilkinson agreed).
The House of Lords cited approvingly a list of factors set out by McCowan LJ in R v Civil Service Appeal Board, Ex parte Cunningham [1992] ICR 816 at 831 that supported a requirement that the Civil Service Appeal Board, when setting the amount of compensation for unfair dismissal, to give reasons. The list is as follows: 1. There is no appeal from the board's determination of the amount of compensation. 2. In making that determination the board is carrying out a judicial function. 3. The board is susceptible to judicial review. 4. The procedure provided for by the code, that is to say the provision of a recommendation without reasons, is insufficient to achieve justice. 5. There is no statute which requires the courts to tolerate that unfairness. 6. The giving of short reasons would not frustrate the apparent purpose of the code. 7. It is not a case where the giving of reasons would be harmful to the public interest. These considerations drive me to the view that this is a case where the board should have given reasons
In addressing whether the Board was obliged to give reasons in relation to its consideration of penalty in a claim for unfair dismissal, Lord Donaldson MR said at 827: Any other conclusion would reduce the board to the status of free-wheeling palm tree.
Although English courts frequently affirm that there is no general duty to give reasons, it has been described that "[t]he English cases may have reached a "tipping point" at which the common law principle that there is no general duty to provide reasons has become so heavily qualified that the exception is now the rule which itself is subject to various exceptions": Mark Aronson, Matthew Groves and Greg Weeks, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability (Lawbook, 6th ed, 2017) at 632 [8.440].
In my view, the approach of English courts should not be followed in Australia because it is inconsistent with Osmond: see PSA v Treasury Secretary [2014] at 329-330 [43] (Basten JA with whom Ward JA, as her Honour then was, and Bergin CJ at Eq agreed); Shaw v Deputy Registrar Buljan [2016] FCA 829 at [45] (Charlesworth J). I also doubt whether "fairness" can be a helpful or predictable guide to the content of natural justice to justify the imposition of a duty to give reasons.

[37]

The Approach of the Court of Appeal and this Court

In Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 ("Pettitt v Dunkley"), the Court of Appeal held that "an obligation, concerning the giving of reasons, lies upon any court, including an intermediate court of appeal, so far as it is necessary to enable the case properly and sufficiently to be laid before the higher appellate court": at 388 (Asprey JA).
Asprey JA said at 381: The rights of appeal … are statutory rights granted by the legislature to the parties … and the failure of a trial judge in the appropriate case to state his findings and reasons amounts, in my view, to an encroachment upon those rights. The omission of the trial judge makes it impossible for an appellate court to give effect to those rights … and so carry out its own appellate functions.
His Honour stated at 382: In my respectful opinion the authorities to which I have referred and the other decisions which are therein mentioned establish that where in a trial without a jury there are real and relevant issues of fact which are necessarily posed for judicial decision, or where there are substantial principles of law relevant to the determination of the case dependent for their application upon findings of fact in contention between the parties, and the mere recording of a verdict for one side or the other leaves an appellate tribunal in doubt as to how those various factual issues or principles have been resolved, then, in the absence of some strong compelling reason, the case is such that the judge's findings of fact and his reasons are essential for the purpose of enabling a proper understanding of the basis upon which the verdict entered has been reached, and the judge has a duty, as part of the exercise of his judicial office, to state the findings and the reasons for his decision adequately for that purpose. If he decides in such a case not to do so, he has made an error in that he has not properly fulfilled the function which the law calls upon him as a judicial person to exercise and such a decision on his part constitutes an error of law.
Gibbs CJ observed in Osmond at 666 that: The decision in [Pettitt v Dunkley] that the failure to give reasons was an error in law may have broken new ground, but there was nothing new in saying that judges are under an obligation to give reasons where that is necessary to enable the matter to be properly considered on appeal.
There are several Court of Appeal authorities following Osmond that shed light on the approach to be taken with respect to whether there is an obligation on administrative decision-makers to give reasons where there is no express statutory duty to do so.
In Attorney-General (NSW) v Kennedy Miller Television Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 729 ("Kennedy Miller TV"), the Court of Appeal held that a costs assessor was obliged to give reasons.
It is noteworthy that s 208L(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) (repealed) ("LP Act") (following amendments made by the Legal Profession Reform Act 1993 (NSW)) gave parties to an application for a costs assessments a right to appeal to the Supreme Court from the decisions and determinations of the costs assessor on a matter of law. Section 208M(1) provided a right to a party to an application relating to a bill of costs to seek leave of the Supreme Court to appeal against the determination of the application by a costs assessor.
On the assumption that a costs assessor exercises an administrative function, Priestley JA (with whom Handley and Powell JJA agreed) found that "the rights of appeal incorporated in the new assessment system point very powerfully" towards an implication that the costs assessor needs to give reasons: at 734. His Honour stated that Div 6 of Pt 11 of the LP Act (which contains ss 208L and 208M) "provides a particularly clear example of the kind of "special" situation spoken of by both Gibbs CJ and Deane J": at 735.
Priestley JA held at 735 that: [S]imply looking at s 208L and s 208M…it seems very clear that unless the costs assessors are to be obliged to give reasons for their determinations, the appeal provisions are likely to be, although not completely useless, so close to it as to negate the clear intent that in regard to questions of law at any rate a party dissatisfied with the cost assessor's decision should have a real and not largely illusory right of appeal.
In Xuereb v Viola (1989) 18 NSWLR 453 ("Xuereb"), Cole J held that a referee appointed by this Court to inquire and report pursuant to Pt 72 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) is required to give reasons for their opinion at least to the extent of giving a basic explanation of the fundamental reasons which led to their opinion: at 469. This is notwithstanding that no legislative provision or rule expressly required the giving of reasons.
Cole J referred to s 23 of the Supreme Court Act, which provides that this Court "shall have all jurisdiction which may be necessary for the administration of justice in New South Wales". His Honour held at 467 that: The administration of justice requires the application of the statutes, the application of concepts of common law and equity and the application of principles of natural justice between disputing parties.
Cole J noted that the wide power conferred on the Rules Committee in s 124 of the Supreme Court Act is to be read subject to the requirements of s 23. At 467, his Honour stated: There can be no doubt, however, that s 124(2) is to be read as permitting only the prescription of rules to facilitate the implementation of the jurisdiction of the Court enunciated in s 23. As s 23 implicitly requires the Supreme Court to adhere to concepts of natural justice, so must the rules.
Cole J held that the obligation to adhere to the concepts of natural justice from s 23 of the Supreme Court Act required referees to give reasons. At 469, his Honour stated: [N]atural justice requires that a referee give reasons for his opinion. This is not just to permit the court better to exercise its functions under Pt 72, r 13. The deeper reason is that it enables the parties and the disinterested observer to know that the opinion of the referee is not arbitrary, or influenced by improper considerations but is the result of a process of logic and the application of a considered mind to factual B circumstances.
In Anderson Stuart v Treleavan (2000) 49 NSWLR 88 ("Anderson Stuart"), this Court considered whether the Strata Titles Board was required to give reasons when exercising power under s 119 of the Strata Titles Act 1973 (NSW) (repealed) in circumstances where the statute is wholly silent on the matter.
Santow J (as his Honour then was) noted that whilst the Board may not be a "quasi-judicial" body, it is at least exercising a "quasi-judicial function". His Honour held that the Board, in light of the right to appeal, should have given reasons for their decision for a point that could have been determinative of the result: at 124 [185].
In Vegan, the Court of Appeal accepted that there was an implied statutory obligation imposed on an Appeal Panel reviewing a medical assessment under ss 327 and 328 the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) (repealed) ("WIMWC Act"). Handley JA (with whom McColl JA agreed) held that the approved medical specialist had an implied duty to give reasons because there was a statutory appeal from their certificate to an Appeal Panel: at 377 [24].
The Appeal Panel was held to have an implied duty to give "proper reasons" because its function was to correct error and because there was a power to refer a matter back for further assessment: at 377 [26] (Handley JA with whom McColl JA agreed).
Basten JA (with whom Handley and McColl JJA agreed) gave three reasons why there was a duty to give reasons. The first reason given (at [109]) for that conclusion was that: [T]he assessment of permanent impairment undertaken by the Appeal Panel involves the application of a statutory test, by which legal rights as between an employee and an employer are determined. Accordingly it is an exercise in the nature of a judicial function, whatever the precise name or status of the Appeal Panel itself.
Secondly, the legislation imposed on the medical specialist, from whom an appeal could be taken to the Appeal Panel, an obligation to give reasons. Thirdly, the Act allowed for further assessments to be ordered by a court or the Commission, powers which would be hampered if no reasons were available for the certificate given by the Appeal Panel: at [116].
Importantly, it was noted that the fact that no appeal was available from the decisions of the Appeal Panel itself did not preclude the existence of an obligation to give reasons.
Vegan can be contrasted with the decision of Latham J in Inghams Enterprises v Iogha [2006] NSWSC 456 ("Inghams v Iogha"). Her Honour found that the Registrar, in exercising the "gatekeeper" function under s 327 of the WIMWC Act, did not have an obligation to give reasons. Latham J reached this conclusion because: 1. The Registrar is not engaged in an inquiry concerning the law as it is and the facts as they are, followed by an application of the law as determined to the facts as determined: at [20]; 2. The Registrar plays no role in determining the legal rights and duties of parties: at [21]; and 3. There is no appeal from the Registrar's decision and the right to a re-hearing de novo before the Appeal Panel renders the reasons for the Registrar's decision immaterial to the appeal: at [22].
In the following year, the Court of Appeal in Riverina Wines Pty Ltd v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW & Ors [2007] NSWCA 149 ("Riverina Wines") concluded that, when a Registrar or delegate exercising the function under s 327(4) of the WIMWC Act to decide whether an appeal can proceed, they are not under any duty to provide reasons for that decision: at [114]. Hodgson JA observed, however, that "[i]t may be different where the Registrar's decision prevents the matter going forward, and this has the potential to finally determine rights": at [5].

[38]

Authorities Concerning the Obligation of the Commission to Give Reasons

In PSA v Treasury Secretary [2014], Basten JA (with whom Ward JA, as her Honour then was, and Bergin CJ at Eq) held that the Full Bench of the Commission had an obligation to give reasons. At 329 [42], Basten JA stated: The Industrial Relations Commission exercises a variety of functions under the Industrial Relations Act and other legislation. When acting as the Commission in Court Session it is exercising judicial functions: Industrial Relations Act, Pt 3. There is no express statutory obligation imposed on the Commission in Court Session to give reasons, but the obligation would flow as a matter of implication from general law principles. Indeed, the obligation may be embedded in the statement that "formal procedures of a superior court of record apply": s 163(2). Otherwise the Commission exercises a range of functions in relation to setting remuneration and conditions of employment, resolving industrial disputes, including making declarations with respect to unfair contracts and granting relief from dismissals which are found to be harsh, unreasonable or unjust. The Commission may determine its own procedure, is not bound to act in a formal manner and "is to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities or legal forms": see generally ss 162 and 163(1).
His Honour referred to his earlier opinion in Vegan and stated at 330 [45] that: Similar reasoning should be accepted in the present case. First, the nature of the jurisdiction, which involves consideration of whether the dismissal of a person from employment is harsh, unreasonable or unjust, although applying a broad evaluative standard, bears a close relationship to many kinds of civil disputes determined by traditional courts. Secondly, the statutory obligation on appeal to "follow the principles applying to appeals from discretionary decisions" invokes general law principles applicable in courts. Thirdly, as the decision of the Commission at first instance, being subject to an appeal, would carry an obligation to give reasons, it is unlikely that the appellate body would have a lesser obligation. These factors suffice to infer that Parliament intended that the Full Bench, even when not sitting in Court Session, is obliged to give reasons for its decisions in unfair dismissal cases.
It is noted that, when PSA v Treasury Secretary [2014] was decided, the Commission was composed of both judicial officers and Commissioners and, unlike the Commission as constituted today, the judicial officers could exercise the powers of the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court was not only a superior court of record but was a separate and distinct body to the Commission otherwise constituted: Hollingsworth v Commissioner of Police (1998) 47 NSWLR 104 at 121 (Hill J), 138-139 (Hungerford J); Taudevin v Egis Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (2001) 131 IR 124; [2001] NSWIRComm 340 at 171-172 [137]-[138] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Hungerford J) ("Taudevin").
It is well-established that the Commission is required to give reasons when dealing with applications for unfair dismissal: see, eg, Webb v Goulburn Masonic Village (2004) 136 IR 309; [2004] NSWIRComm 258 ("Webb v Goulburn"); Ambulance Service of New South Wales v Buchtmann (2007) 160 IR 57; [2007] NSWIRComm 18 at 68 [49] (Walton J, Vice-President, Deputy Presidents Sams and Grayson) ("Buchtmann"); Lee v Energy Australia (No 4) [2011] NSWIRComm 120 at [134]-[137] (Walton J, Vice-President, Staff J and Commissioner Macdonald); Redmond v Director General, NSW Department of Health, on behalf of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales [2012] NSWIRComm 147 (Walton J, Vice-President, Backman J and Commissioner Bishop).
In Entertainment Distributors Co Pty Ltd v Burnard (1993) 49 IR 446 ("Entertainment Distributors"), the Full Bench heard an appeal from Conciliation Commissioner McMahon who had dismissed an application for unfair dismissal. Hill and Peterson JJ and Chief Commissioner Connor stated at 453: In our opinion, having regard to the provisions of Part 8 and in particular ss 246 and 250 [of the Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW)] it is fundamental to the proper exercise of the jurisdiction that the Commission should first make a finding whether or not the employee has been harshly, unreasonably or unjustly dismissed or threatened with dismissal by the employer and set out the reasons for that finding prior to making any order disposing of an application under s 246. It is not sufficient in our view for this merely to be left as a matter of inference from the fact that the Commission decides to dismiss the application or alternatively make orders pursuant to s 250. [Emphasis added.]
After finding that the Conciliation Commissioner had not given sufficient reasons, the Full Bench stated at 454: Accordingly, since no findings were made in this case that, and no reasons given as to why, the dismissals were harsh, unreasonable and/or unjust and in addition no reasons were given which were essential to the ultimate conclusion to order re-employment, we are of the view that the decision and orders cannot stand.
In Lord v Flight Centre (No 2), the Full Bench (Walton J, Vice-President, Schmidt J and Deputy President Grayson) upheld an appeal from Commissioner McLeay's dismissal of the appellant's unfair dismissal application for want of prosecution. The appellant claimed that after the decision had been given, she was not advised of the decision or of the appeal process available. It was common ground that the Commissioner later acted to dismiss the application for want of prosecution without giving either party an opportunity to be heard before that order was made. No explanation for the Commissioner's decision was given.
The Full Bench affirmed Webb v Goulburn and held at [12] that "the Commission was obliged to give reasons for the decision". The Full Bench concluded that, in proceedings under Pt 6 of Ch 2 of the Act, the determination of applications made under s 84 of the Act by non-judicial members of the Commission required the provision of reasons for the decision.
It was also decided that the reasons for decision must be adequate, such that the decision will disclose the steps in reasoning which led to the determination of the proceedings. At [14], the Full Bench elaborated that "the Commissioner was here required to give reasons explaining why the proceedings were dismissed for want of prosecution, albeit in the circumstances the reasons would have been short." In that case, the mere fact that the Commissioner had given some warning or put the appellant on notice of a particular course during the hearing (as recorded in the transcript) was not sufficient to discharge the obligation to give reasons.
Although these authorities do not concern the Commission making dispute orders in arbitration, they demonstrate that, at least in certain other contexts, the Commission is under an obligation to give reasons. In light of these authorities, I consider the prosecutor's concession that the Commission may be under a duty to give reasons in at least some contexts to be properly made.

[39]

NSW FBEU v Fire and Rescue NSW

Before turning to my consideration, I note that the parties placed reliance on FBEU v FRNSW [2012].
That case concerned an appeal to the Full Bench from the decision of Commissioner Ritchie to make dispute orders. Marks and Kavanagh JJ and Commissioner Stanton noted at [7] that: [7] At the conclusion of the hearing, and after a short break, the Commissioner delivered his reasons and made the orders that are the subject of the application for leave to appeal. After reciting in summary form the background to the proceedings, the Commissioner said: If the respondent believed there had been a breach of an agreement and it was not satisfied with the actions of the applicant, then it should have notified the dispute with the Commission. This, it did not do. I accept the submission of the respondent with respect of the breadth of the proposed orders and their duration.
The union appealed against the decision on the grounds that the Commissioner failed to address "the essential elements of the matters" which came before him and failed to give adequate "intelligible and readily understood" reasons: at [8]. At [10]-[11], the Full Bench held: [10] The determination as to whether or not to issue dispute orders involves the exercise of a discretion. The Commissioner exercised his discretion in an appropriate way, and we find that the exercise of his discretion did not miscarry. The Commissioner was not obliged to give lengthy or elaborate reasons for his decision and orders. See Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 and the well-known passages in the judgments of Mahoney JA and McHugh JA cited therein. [11] Even though the Commissioner's reasoning was stated succinctly, there could be no doubt in anyone's mind that the Commissioner had determined to require that the bans be lifted before the underlying industrial dispute was dealt with. Any argument that the Commissioner had not given adequate and cogent reasons must fall away.
First, I note on the outset that this Court is not bound by decisions of the Commission or Industrial Court, whether sitting as a Full Bench or otherwise. As I explained in Education Secretary v AEU [2022], this is so notwithstanding that the Industrial Court, at the time of its existence, was a superior court of record and of equivalent status to this Court under Pt 9 of the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW): s 152 of the Act, before the repeal by cl 16 of Sch 1 to the 2016 Amendment Act, which came into effect on 8 December 2016.
This is because it is illogical for a decision of the Industrial Court to be the subject of judicial review by the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and, at the same time, bind this Court: Education Secretary v AEU [2022] at [322] (Walton J).
This follows from the federal context in which a decision of the former Australian Industrial Court was considered not binding upon the Federal Court even when the Australian Industrial Court was constituted by three Judges and the Federal Court was constituted by only one Judge, notwithstanding that both courts were superior courts of record: Education Secretary v AEU [2022] at [324] (Walton J) citing Harris v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1978) 45 FLR 469 at 471 (Keely J).
I add one further reason. The Full Bench of the Industrial Court had the ability to depart from its earlier decisions although it "should do so cautiously and only when compelled to the conclusion that the earlier decision is wrong": Nguyen v Nguyen (1990) 169 CLR 245 at 269 (Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ), cited in Reich v Client Server Professionals of Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 551; [2000] NSWIRComm 143 at 582 [55] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Hungerford J); see also Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, WA Branch v Nappy Happy Hire Pty Ltd t/as Nappy Happy Service (1994) 56 IR 62 at 63-64 (Franklyn J with whom Kennedy P agreed), 67-68 (Anderson J with whom Kennedy P and Franklyn J agreed). Thus, where a decision of the Full Bench was wrong, there was the capacity and opportunity for the Full Bench to overrule and correct its earlier decision. An example was the principles in Electricity Commission v Crump (1993) 48 IR 296 were overruled in Outboard World Pty Ltd v Muir (1993) 51 IR 167. The latter decision was overruled and the former decision was applied in Big W Discount Stores v Donato (1995) 58 IR 239 at 242 (Fisher P, Cullen J and Chief Commissioner Shiels) and later codified in s 191 of the Act. After the abolition of the Industrial Court, no such capacity or opportunity exists if the Full Bench had made a wrong decision. In my view, this Court should not be forever bound to follow an erroneous Full Bench decision merely because there is no longer a mechanism by which the decision could be overruled and corrected.
Secondly, although I am not bound to follow decisions of the Full Bench, I consider that FBEU v FRNSW [2012] is highly persuasive, especially because it was constituted by two eminent Judges and, in any case, was correctly decided.
Commissioner Ritchie's decision was made in the context that the union had, on the previous day, placed "work bans" by instructing their members not to perform certain work relating to logistic support vehicles in the New South Wales Fire Brigade. On the day of the decision, the employer had sought an urgent hearing. The Commission made recommendations that included the immediate lifting of the bans. Later that day, the employer sought dispute orders because the bans had not been lifted. It is in this context that Commissioner Ritchie sought to conciliate the dispute and then proceeded to arbitration. After hearing evidence and submissions from the parties, made dispute orders.
In the context of that urgency, the succinct reasons given by Commissioner Ritchie were adequate in circumstances where the Commission was constrained to act urgently. Importantly, the brief reasons addressed the crux of the case put before the Commission, which concerned whether dispute orders should be made to lift the bans whilst the underlying dispute as to the union's allegation that the employer breached an agreement was being considered. I agree with the Full Bench that the Commission, in these circumstances, may state their reasons succinctly and there was no obligation to give lengthy or elaborate reasons.
Counsel for the prosecutor submitted that it can be inferred from FBEU v FRNSW [2012] that the Commission is under no obligation to give any reasons at all on the basis that the Full Bench concluded that the powers or jurisdiction of the Commission did not miscarry.
I reject that submission. There is a distinction between the requirement to give reasons and the adequacy or minimum content of any reasons. It is clear from a proper reading of FBEU v FRNSW [2012] that the Full Bench was only engaged with the latter. The ground of appeal before the Full Bench was that the Commissioner had not given adequate reasons. The Full Bench was clearly passing upon the content of the reasons it stated that the Commissioner was "not obliged to give lengthy or elaborate reasons for his decision and orders" and that "[a]ny argument that the Commissioner had not given adequate and cogent reasons must fall away": at [10]-[11] (Marks and Kavanagh JJ and Commissioner Stanton) (emphasis added).
This is fortified by the fact that the Full Bench had cited Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 ("Soulemezis"). In that case, the Court of Appeal considered the extent of the duty of a Judge of the Compensation Court of New South Wales to give reasons for their decision in a contested case. It was not contested in that case that judicial officers must usually give reasons for their decision or that Thompson J had given some reasons. Rather, the issue was whether Thompson J's decision was adequate.
It was established in Soulemezis that the duty of a judicial officer to provide reasons for their decision can be sufficiently satisfied by the giving of grounds for their findings of fact. Although in dissent, Kirby P (as his Honour then was) stated at 260: This Court has expressly recognised the appropriateness of abbreviated oral judgments in busy trial courts whilst, at the same time, emphasising the requirement that, as a minimum, reasons be adequate for the exercise of a facility of appeal[.]
Mahoney JA stated at 271: In my opinion, the law does not require that a judge make an express finding in respect of every fact leading to, or relevant to, his final conclusion of fact; nor is it necessary that he reason, and be seen to reason, from one fact to the next along the chain of reasoning to that conclusion.
Therefore, nothing follows from FBEU v FRNSW [2012] that supports the prosecutor's submission that the Commission was under no obligation to give reasons when making dispute orders.

[40]

Consideration

If there is an obligation on the Commission to give reasons, the source of such obligation needs to be identified: New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Orr (2019) 100 NSWLR 578; [2019] NSWCA 231 at 603-604 [110]-[114] (Ward JA, as her Honour then was). Indeed, her Honour stated that "[i]t should not be assumed that, in the absence of a request for the provision of reasons, there is an implied statutory obligation (let alone an obligation at common law)" on the part of a tribunal: at 604 [114].
Osmond remains good law in Australia. It was cited approvingly by French CJ, Crennan, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ in Wingfoot at 497-498 [43] as authority for the proposition that "there is in Australia no free-standing common law duty to give reasons for making a statutory decision".
Although Osmond was broadly stated, that case must be read in light of the statutory framework. There was no appeal from a decision of the Public Service Board and s 65A(6)(c) of the Public Service Act was a privative clause which purported to exclude judicial review even for jurisdictional error.
It should be made clear that Gibbs CJ in Osmond did not conclusively decide that the presence of "special circumstances" would be sufficient to require reasons to be given. His Honour was merely "assuming that in special circumstances natural justice may require reasons to be given": at 670. Only Deane J in Osmond treated special circumstances as sufficient to establish a duty to give reasons. Nevertheless, the subsequent decisions of the Court of Appeal in Kennedy Miller TV and Vegan, of which I am respectfully bound to apply, have made clear that, where special circumstances can be demonstrated, there is a requirement to provide reasons.
To determine whether there are any "special circumstances", the starting point is the text of the Act.
First, s 163(1)(c) of the Act provides that the Commission "is to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities or legal forms". In Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 315, Rothman J traced the use of similarly worded provisions in Australia. They are often used to describe the tasks of tribunals that are required to alter the rights of parties. His Honour observed at [80]-[81]: [80] Provisions of similar kind (expressed in some respects in identical language) are familiar to any practitioner before tribunals in Australia and elsewhere. The term "equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case" is used more often than not to describe the tasks of tribunals that are required to alter the rights of parties and those terms apply the rules of natural justice: see Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1983 (Cth) sections 40 and 41, ibid, 1983-1988, sections 110 and 111; Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) sections 110, 111; Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) sections 110, 111; Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) sections 162, 163; Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 (NSW) section 83; Industrial Arbitration Act 1912-1949 (WA) section 69. [81] The earliest reference to these expressions discovered by the Court was by Henry VIII, later codified in "an act for the recovering of small debts and for the relieving of poor debtors in London" (3 James I C 15, section 11), which, in 1606, gave similar procedural functions to the Commissioner who constituted Courts of Request or Court of Conscience under the statute. Its first use in this State seems to have been in 1842 (6 Vict 15) and it was inserted in both the State (Industrial Arbitration Act 1901 (NSW)) and Federal (Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth)) industrial arbitration statutes when first enacted and into statutes dealing with small debt recovery: see Small Debts Recovery Act 1912 (NSW) section 7 and the article by O Howard Beale at 10 ALJ 349. Whatever else it may connote, it certainly includes the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness: Barlow v Orde (1870) LR 3 PC 164 per Westbury LJ; Skinner v Naunihal Singh (1913) 40 Indian Appeals 105 at 114, per Shaw LJ. It has been applied in Australia as that which is right and fair, which has included natural justice at least since 1903: Colliery Employees Federation v Northern Colliery Proprietors Association [1904] 3 AR (NSW) 182 at 185; Greater Wollongong City Council v Dunn [1973] 1 NSWLR 36 at 42 (per Hutley JA).
The requirement in s 163(1)(c) clearly means that, in exercising its statutory powers, the Commission is required to observe procedural fairness: General Pants (Trading) Co Pty Ltd v Shonny (unreported, Full Commission of New South Wales, IRC 3123 of 1993, 8 September 1994) at 12 (Fisher P, Schmidt J and Chief Commissioner Murphy); CGEA Transport Ltd t/a Southtrans v Transport Workers Union of Australia (2001) 110 IR 211; [2001] NSWIRComm 287 at 220 [33] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Commissioner Neal) ("CGEA v TWU"). This was recently affirmed in Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2021] by Rothman J who, after referring to the terms of s 163(1)(c) of the Act, stated at 342 [107]: [I]t is well-established that where a tribunal, such as the Commission, may exercise jurisdiction to affect adversely the rights of a party (or to enforce them), the rules of procedural fairness apply, unless the legislature provides otherwise, either expressly or by words of necessary intendment.
In addition to being bound to follow rules of natural justice, the phrase in s 163(1)(c) of the Act has been held to require that the Commission, when exercising its statutory powers, to "act judicially": Re Australian Railways Union; Ex parte Public Transport Corporation (1993) 51 IR 22; [1993] HCA 28 at 23-24 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ), which was cited approvingly in CGEA v TWU at 221 [34] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Commissioner Neal). See also Re Australian Bank Employees Union; Ex parte Citicorp Australia Ltd (1989) 167 CLR 513 at 519 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).
This is consistent with the observations of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Witthahn v Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services (2021) 312 IR 314; [2021] QCA 282. Section 531(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) requires the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to be "guided in its decisions by equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case", which is nearly identical to the wording in s 163(1)(c) of the NSW Act. Drawing on this provision and other provisions in the Queensland Act, Sofronoff P (with whom Morrison JA agreed) stated: The Commission's functions include "resolving disputes by conciliation … and … by arbitration". The applicability of these statutory principles will have an effect upon the scope of relevant facts. The applicability of these statutory principles for the quelling of a dispute also means that the Commission's jurisdiction will sometimes require it to act judicially and sometimes, when appropriate, to act non-judicially.
Although it might be said that the Commission may act "non-judicially" when conducting conciliation, it is plainly clear that, when the Commission is engaged in "quelling a dispute" by arbitration, it is required to act judicially.
In Edwards v Justice Giudice (1999) 94 FCR 561, Marshall J (with whom Moore J agreed, Finkelstein J not finding it necessary to determine) made certain findings regarding the obligation on a non-judicial member of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission ("AIRC") to give adequate reasons for any decision. At 572-573 [43]-[46], his Honour stated: [43] The Commission, although an administrative tribunal, does arbitrate on the claims of competing parties in a quasi-judicial setting. It is obliged to act judicially and afford procedural fairness to persons with business before it. See, for example, Re Australian Railways Union; Ex parte Public Transport Commission (1993) 67 ALJR 904 at 908-909; 117 ALR 17 at 23-24. See also Re Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance; Ex parte Arnel (1994) 179 CLR 84 at 94 where Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson and Gaudron referred to the requirements of procedural fairness as being an essential feature of the arbitral power. (Notwithstanding that the nature of the arbitral power of the Commission in dismissal cases differs from the nature of its arbitral power in its award making function the Commission is also bound to act judiciously in dealing with dismissal cases, no doubt because of the consequences for the persons immediately concerned.) [44] In a seriously contested case before a tribunal which is required to afford procedural fairness and act judicially, an arbitrator is obliged to disclose the steps involved in the reasoning which leads to a particular result. There does not appear to be any obligation expressed in the Act to require a member of the Commission to give adequate reasons for a decision. It does not thereby follow, however, that in some cases such as strongly contested ones where a final order of significant consequence may be made that full reasons should not be given. [45] As Deane J said in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 366: A duty to act judicially (or to accord procedural fairness or natural justice) extends to the actual decision-making procedure or process, that is to say, to the manner in which and the steps by which the decision is made. [46] The obligation to give adequate reasons may more readily arise when a right of appeal lies from the order which gives effect to the decision at first instance, as is the case in the instant circumstances. Indeed a statutory right of appeal was considered by the New South Wales Court of Appeal as being a relevant "special circumstance" in the context of the portion of the judgment of Gibbs CJ in Osmond cited above: see Attorney-General (NSW) v Kennedy Miller Television Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 729 per Priestley JA, with whom Powell JA agreed (at 734-735), and per Handley JA at 739.
This passage was cited approvingly by the Full Bench in Webb v Goulburn at 318 [37]-[38] (Boland J, as his Honour then was, Staff J and Commissioner Bishop). Whilst there was a small difference between the discretion of a member of the AIRC under the s 170CG of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (repealed) ("WR Act") and s 88 of the Act, the Full Bench stated at 318 [38] that: [W]e, nonetheless, consider that there is an obligation upon non-judicial members of this Commission to "disclose the steps involved in the reasoning which leads to a particular result" in those cases where there is a duty to accord procedural fairness or natural justice.
In my view, this factor has strong parallels to the factors giving rise to a duty to give reasons found by Cole J in Xuereb and Santow J (as his Honour then was) in Anderson Stuart. Although it is true that the Commission is not a "court" for the purposes of Ch III of the Commonwealth Constitution, it nonetheless, when arbitrating an industrial dispute, is required to accord procedural fairness and act judicially. It is, at the very least, a quasi-judicial body.
Secondly, ss 187 and 188 of the Act create a right for a party to seek leave to appeal a decision of the Commission constituted by a single member. I respectfully agree with the many decisions of the Full Bench of the Commission that have recognised that a Commissioner must give reasons to make effective a statutory right of appeal.
In Entertainment Distributors, Hill and Peterson JJ and Chief Commissioner Connor stated at 452 that: It is not, of course, necessary for a tribunal to provide a detailed and exhaustive analysis of each and every matter raised in a proceeding. It is however crucial that the decision should contain adequate reasons, although not necessarily detailed ones, to support the fundamental findings and conclusions so as to allow the appropriate exercise of any right of appeal; the requirement to give adequate reasons for decisions is not however confined to cases where there is a right of appeal (Soulemezis v Dudley Holdings Pty Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247).
In Monier PGH (Holdings) Ltd v Horsey ( 1998) 86 IR 63, Hungerford and Marks JJ and Commissioner Murphy stated at 73: One compelling reason for the necessity to give reasons is the existence, as here, of a right of appeal. Absent reasons, or sufficient reasons, the appellate tribunal is unable to properly undertake the review process and to correct any error at first instance. Section 350 of the 1996 Act creates a right of appeal from a decision, order or direction of the Tribunal to a Full Bench of the Commission. Although the Tribunal may not strictly be a judicial body, it certainly exercises and performs its functions in a quasi-judicial manner. The creation of a right of appeal and the general provisions of Pt 7 of Ch 6 of the 1996 Act require, in our view, the Tribunal to give reasons for decision in the same way and to the same extent as is referred to in the authorities we have cited. The absence of any reasoning process in the subject decision of the Tribunal has created, in our opinion, an appellable error of law
That decision highlighted the "incurable difficulty" that made it "impossible for [the Full Bench] to review in a meaningful way" the decision of the Contract of Carriage Tribunal at 72 as follows: Indeed, we have incurable difficulty in examining this area because of the lack of reasons given by the Tribunal as to the processes utilised by and reasoning of it in determining the quantum of compensation payable to Mr Horsey. It is not enough, in our opinion, for the Tribunal to state baldly its assessment of quantum without express reasoning and regard to the matters referred to in s 349(4). It is necessary for some reasoning to be published (albeit briefly and to the point) which attests to compliance with the mandatory requirements of s 349(4). In the same way, it is our opinion that it is necessary for reasons (albeit briefly and to the point) to be given as to the approach to quantification of compensation in the manner required by s 349(6). The total absence of reasoning, we are constrained to say, makes it impossible for us to review in any meaningful way the decision of the Tribunal. Whilst the view expressed by the Tribunal that the future amortisation of goodwill may not, in an appropriate case, be a proper approach to take, the absence of reasoning simply does not allow us to assess the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal on this aspect.
It has long been recognised by the courts of this State that a duty to give proper reasons can be implied where there is a right to statutory appeal. This was stated in early cases in Carlson v King (1947) 64 WN (NSW) 65, where Jordan CJ said at 66: It has long been established that it is the duty of a Court of first instance, from which an appeal lies to a higher Court, to make, or cause to be made, a note of everything necessary to enable the case to be laid properly and sufficiently before the appellate Court if there should be an appeal. This includes not only the evidence, and the decision arrived at, but also the reasons for arriving at the decision.
This view is also shared by the courts of other States. In Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd v Massoud [1989] VR 8, Gray J writes "that the law has developed in a way which obliges a court from which an appeal lies to state adequate reasons for its decision": at 18.
However, the oft-cited quote of McHugh JA (as his Honour then was) in Soulemezis at 278 must also be remembered, which is as follows: [I]t is no longer correct to say that a judge has no duty to give reasons unless there is a right of appeal against his decision. If it was, an ultimate court of appeal would have no duty to give reasons. In my opinion, the duty rests on a wider basis: its foundation is the principle that justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done.
Although these cases discuss the duty of a court to give reasons, Handley JA made clear in Vegan at 377 [24] that this reasoning applies where there is an appeal from an administrative decision maker to a panel or from an expert to a panel of experts.
The importance of reasons can be seen in East Melbourne Group Inc v Minister for Planning (2008) 23 VR 605; [2008] VSCA 217. Ashley and Redlich JJA observed at 661-662 [228] that: In our view, reasons are no less important where an authority, though not under a statutory duty to provide reasons, provides reasons to explain the discretionary exercise of a statutory power. Where the authority gives reasons for its decision, the court may act upon them if they demonstrate an erroneous approach to an exercise of power. But like reasons given pursuant to a statutory obligation, reasons voluntarily provided should not be overzealously scrutinised.
Pettitt v Dunkley and Kennedy Miller TV point to a statutory right of appeal as a powerful consideration that supports an implied duty to give reasons. In my view, it is essential, in order for appeals to the Full Bench under ss 187 and 188 of the Act to be effective, that the Commission provide reasons for the making of dispute orders. I agree with the submission of the defendant that, without any reasons, it will be very difficult, and perhaps impossible, for an appellant to establish a House v The King error and the efficacious exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the Full Bench will be hampered.
I note that Gibbs CJ observed in Osmond that the difficulties which arise when pursuing judicial review in the absence of reasons cannot, by themselves, provide a justification for implying an obligation to give reasons. This is notwithstanding the obvious difficulties with reviewing, for example, whether the decision-maker had considered the mandatory relevant considerations: see generally Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353 at 360 (Dixon J). However, as Basten JA explained in Vegan, there is a distinction between judicial review and statutory appeals.
Thirdly, the context of the Commission making dispute orders highlights the importance of giving reasons. On a practical level when dispute orders are made against a trade union or members of a union, reasons are important to inform the very large workforce receiving them, often when the employer and employees are in the midst of a very tense industrial disputes, that their union's arguments have been considered and there has been a proper and true adjudicative process. This furthers the objects contained in s 3(a) of the Act to provide a framework for the conduct of industrial relations that is not only fair and just, but seen to be fair and just.
In my view, giving reasons in the industrial context is especially significant and important. This is evident in the fact that an employer who does not give reasons to an employee for their dismissal will prima facie be presumed to have acted unfairly, harshly and unjustly: Western Suburbs District Ambulance Committee v Tipping [1957] AR (NSW) 273 at 276 (McKeon J); New South Wales Independent Teachers' Association v St Aloysius College [1976] AR (NSW) 91 at 96-97 (Beattie J, President, Cahill J, as his Honour then was, and Dey J); Re Ferguson; Public Service Association (NSW) v Public Service Board (NSW) (1988) 25 IR 148 at 154 (Bauer J); Twohill v Mental As Anything Touring Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] NSWIRComm 17 (Marks J). The giving of reasons is very important to maintain confidence and trust in the Commission, which would further participation in industrial relations by employees and employers at an enterprise or workplace level: s 3(c) of the Act.
Fourthly, it is clear that dispute orders can affect the rights of persons, which Hodgson JA suggests in Riverina Wines to be a significant factor. The broad range of orders that can be made under s 137(1) include ordering a person to cease or refrain from taking industrial action; ordering an employer to reinstate or re-employ any employees who were dismissed in the course of the industrial dispute; order an employer not to dismiss employees in the course of the industrial dispute; and order a person to cease a secondary boycott imposed in connection with the industrial dispute. The consequences of breaching a dispute order can include monetary penalties, cancelling an enterprise agreement, suspending entitlements under an industrial instrument and cancelling the registration of an industrial organisation: s 139(3) of the Act. It is clear that dispute orders can have sweeping and significant consequences.
In my view, the proper reading of the Act evinces "special circumstances" that create an implied statutory duty to give reasons when the Commission makes dispute orders when arbitrating an industrial dispute. Applying the authorities of the Court of Appeal and this Court, Osmond can be distinguished in this case.
This view is consistent with the decision of Marshall, North and Flick JJ in Soliman v University of Technology Sydney (2012) 207 FCR 277; [2012] FCAFC 146 ("Soliman") where their Honours found that there was a requirement for Fair Work Australia to provide reasons and findings in respect of its decision. The Full Court held at 292 [46] that that requirement is to be implied by reason of: - the fact that [the Vice President of Fair Work Australia's] decision affects the rights and livelihood of Dr Soliman; - the obligation on [the Vice President's] part to comply with the common law requirements of procedural fairness; - the obligation on [the Vice President's] part to act in a quasi-judicial manner; - the availability of a right of appeal from [the Vice President's] decision, albeit subject to the grant of permission by the Full Bench; and - the availability of judicial review in respect to both his decision and that of the Full Bench.
I consider the present case to be distinguishable from those in Inghams v Iogha. Unlike the Registrar in that case (see [21]-[22]), the Commission's decision to impose dispute orders can impose legal obligations on the parties and thereby alter their legal rights and duties, and there is an appeal from the Commission's decision.
In arguing against the existence of any duty to provide reasons for the making of dispute orders, the prosecutor relied on s 162(2)(a) of the Act, which provides that the Commission is to "act as quickly as is practicable". In my view, an obligation to give reasons does not detract from this provision. As I will explain below, the obligation on the Commission is not burdensome. Succinct and brief reasons, in circumstances of urgency, will be adequate. Furthermore, s 162(2)(a) of the Act should not be read in isolation. It must be read with the broader statutory mandates contained within the Act that require the Commission to act judicially, accord procedural fairness and resolve it in a manner that is fair and just: Sydney Water v ASU at 403-404 [37] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President and Commissioner Stanton). When s 162(2)(a) of the Act is read in the context of the Act as a whole, the provision does not prevent an obligation to give reasons.
The prosecutor relied on provisions of the Act that expressly mandate decisions to be recorded, including in writing, to suggest that the Parliament did not intend that any reasons were to be recorded or given. This must also be rejected. I use the example cited in the prosecutor's written submissions in reply, that is, s 13(1) of the Act. Section 13(1) of the Act requires that an award is "to be in writing, expressed to be an award and signed by at least one member of the Commission". This title of this section is "Formal matters relating to making of award". A similar provision also appears in s 38(1) of the Act in relation to enterprise agreements. These provisions have nothing to say whatsoever on whether the Commission has a duty to give reasons.
It is plainly unreasonable and contrary to common sense to infer from a statute's requirement that an industrial instrument be in writing that the Parliament intended that the Commission has no obligation to give reasons. In any case, the obligation to give reasons does not mean it must be reduced to writing. Reasons can be given orally, as was the case in FBEU v FRNSW [2012].
It is also for this reason that I do not accept the prosecutor's suggestion that some actions of the Commission specified under s 136(1) of the Act require reasons whilst others do not.
It must be remembered that dispute orders can be, and occasionally are, made in circumstances where dismissal is "clearly threatened and indeed imminent" but has not eventuated: Hill v Director-General, Department of Education & Training (NSW) (1998) 85 IR 201 at 205 (Schmidt J). This occurs when dismissal is "certain, imminent and unconditional": Baker v Australian Workers Union [2006] NSWIRComm 1225 at [3] (Commissioner Connor). It is not when dismissal is merely one possible option amongst others (Decottignies v NSW Department of Education and Training [2010] NSWIRComm 1014 at [34]-[35] (Commissioner Bishop); Barnier v Secretary, Department of Education [2021] NSWIRComm 1045 at [37] (Commissioner Webster)) or when an investigation process is still underway and has not yet been concluded (Xian v Rail Corporation New South Wales [2009] NSWIRComm 1083 at [77]-[78] (Commissioner Bishop)). (For the principles generally, see Public Service Association and Professional Officers Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales on behalf of Pearcey, Barnett and Woelfl v Department of Attorney General and Justice - Corrective Services NSW [2012] NSWIRComm 33 (Boland J, President).)
It was accepted by all parties that there is an obligation to give reasons when the Commission is dealing with an unfair dismissal application. This much is plainly clear in light of the authorities cited above. This would include when orders are made under either s 89(7) or ss 136(1)(c) and 137(1)(c) of the Act. There are many examples of dispute orders being made where dismissal was threatened or imminent: see, eg, Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, New South Wales Branch v Murawina Mt Druitt Co-op Ltd [2005] NSWIRComm 1017 (Commissioner Bishop); Sydney Water v ASU (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, Commissioner Stanton); and, more recently, Police Association of New South Wales v Commissioner of Police [2019] NSWIRComm 1076 (Commissioner Sloan).
I see no basis in the statutory text or any good reason why dispute orders relating to threatened industrial action do not attract a requirement of reasons when dispute orders relating to threatened dismissal does, in circumstances where the making of both kinds of dispute orders generally involve a significant degree of urgency. Furthermore, although it is unnecessary to decide so broadly, I prefer the view that the Commission is under an obligation to give reasons when making, varying or rescinding an award or a dispute order under ss 10, 17(1), 136(1) and 138(2)(c) of the Act.
I also reject the prosecutor's submission relating to s 177(2) of the Act. That section provides as follows: 177 Commission may reserve decision (1) The Commission may reserve its decision in any proceedings before it. (2) A reserved decision of a member or members of the Commission may be given - (a) by the member or members at a subsequent sitting of the Commission, or (b) if the decision of a member is set out in writing and signed by the member - by being delivered by a member of the Commission, or by the Industrial Registrar, at a time and place of which the parties have been given reasonable notice.
The prosecutor appears to equate the term "decision" in s 177 with the reasons given for a decision. That is inconsistent with the ordinary understanding of those two distinct matters in legal or arbitral proceedings. In Solution 6 Holdings Ltd v Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) (2004) 60 NSWLR 558; [2004] NSWCA 200, Spigelman CJ at 587-588 [120] catalogued every reference to a "decision" of the Commission in Ch 4 of the Act. His Honour then held at 588 [121] that: Each of these references involves some form of operative step. Thus s 171 identifies the genus of "decision" as including an "award" and "order". A decision is something which is "given" (s 177), that may be "stayed" (s 190) and "confirmed", "quashed" or "varied" (s 192). There is also a distinction between a "decision" and a "matter or question" which may be referred for "decision" (s 193).
In my view, the reference to a "decision" in Ch 4 of the Act refers to a recommendation, direction, determination or order of the Commission. This is consistent with Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 ("ABT v Bond"), where Mason CJ (with whom Brennan J, as his Honour then was, and Deane J agreed) at 335: In the context of judicial proceedings, the Privy Council has accepted that 'the natural, obvious and prima-facie meaning of the word "decision" is decision of the suit by the Court': see Rajah Tasadduq Rasul Khan v Manik Chand [(1902) LR 30 Ind App 35 at 39]; The Commonwealth v Bank of NSW [(1949) 79 CLR 497 at 625]. But here the relevant context is not that of a decision reached in curial or judicial proceedings, so that the meaning must be determined by reference to the text, scope and purpose of the statute itself.
ABT v Bond was concerned with the construction of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and the Court held in that case that the word "decision" meant "an ultimate or operative determination": at 338 (Mason CJ, with whom Brennan J, as his Honour then was, and Deane J agreed), 375-376 (Toohey and Gaudron JJ).
Section 177(2) of the Act gives flexibility to the Commission to deliver a reserved decision either at a subsequent sitting or in another place and time. The latter option presumes that the Commission is not formally sitting. Practically, the latter option allows decisions of the Commission to be collected by the parties from its Registry or, in some cases, at or near a worksite where an industrial dispute is occurring. The requirement that the decision be made in writing and signed by the Commissioner thus ensures the authenticity of the decision made by the Commission. In my view, it cannot be said that s 177(2) of the Act controls whether the Commission has a duty to give reasons.
I wish to add some remarks about the content of the implied statutory obligation to give reasons. I understand the real world that Commissioners operate. It is very different to the environment of this Court. I am acutely aware that Commissioners are called upon to deal with very difficult and urgent industrial disputes on short notice. It is not uncommon for the filing of a notification, conciliation, arbitration and the making of dispute orders to all happen within one day. Sometimes all those steps will happen within a few hours. Parliament was aware of this context. The Parliament gave broad powers to the Commission to determine its own procedure and practice, including the power to require that the presentation of each party's case be limited in time to what is reasonably necessary and the power to decide on the matters on which it will hear oral evidence or argument: ss 162(2)(c)-(d) of the Act. The Full Bench, when determining whether to grant leave or in hearing an appeal, and this Court, on judicial review, must be mindful of this context when determining the adequacy of reasons.
I emphasise that due allowance must be made when the Commission is constrained by the need to act urgently. In those circumstances, succinct reasons expressed in a highly compressed form are appropriate provided that they "enlighten the reader as to the reasoning process": Sasterawan v Morris [2008] NSWCA 70 at [48] (Tobias JA with whom Beazley JA, as Her Excellency then was, and McClellan CJ at CL agreed).
It must be remembered that it would be inappropriate to place an undue burden upon a busy Commissioner by requiring extensive reasons as to every matter in issue: see, eg, Soulemezis at 279-281 (McHugh JA, as his Honour then was). But where a matter lies at the heart of the issues between the parties and is a significant feature of the Commission's determination of the question, it is nevertheless necessary for the Commission to give at least brief reasons for the conclusion reached.
The obligation to give reasons is not onerous as seen in Commissioner Ritchie's reasons in FBEU v FRNSW [2012]. Brief ex tempore reasons can be given in circumstances where there is concurrent industrial action causing financial and economic loss as seen in Schmidt J's reasons that are extracted in NUW v TNT.
I agree with the observation of Schmidt J, Deputy President Sams and Commissioner McLeay in Britton and Riverstone Public School [1999] NSWIRComm 181 that: [W]here reasons which are given are brief, they nevertheless must deal with the particular issues of fact and law which call for determination in the case … What is required is for reasons to be given in relation to the issues which require the Commission's determination in the particular case.
This is consistent with the Court of Appeal's decision in Wattie v Industrial Relations Secretary on behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Justice (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 124. McColl JA stated at [152] as follows: While, as Basten JA explained in [Lo v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2013) 85 NSWLR 86; [2013] NSWCA 180], '[i]f a decision-maker who gives reasons for a decision makes no reference to a particular matter, it may be inferred that he or she disregarded it, either deliberately or through inadvertence', such an inference should not too readily be drawn where the reasons are otherwise comprehensive and the issue has at least been identified at some point. Indeed, it has been said that '[i]t is a mistake to conclude simply from the fact that a Tribunal does not refer, or does not refer in detail, to some particular aspect of the case that it has escaped [the Tribunal's] attention.' The Tribunal is not expected to set out every consideration which passes through the decision-maker's mind, although some, and usually the most significant, will be expressly dealt with.
Similarly, Emmett AJA made the following observations at [227]: While a decision-maker such as the Commissioner is required to state reasons for the decision being made, such a decision-maker is not required to mention every fact or argument relied on by a losing party. It is also not necessary for a decision-maker to expose every step in the chain of reasoning that leads to the conclusion. The only question is whether the Commissioner entirely overlooked a mandatory consideration.

[41]

The Failure to Give Reasons Does Not Amount to Jurisdictional Error

It was accepted by the parties that the Commissioner did not give reasons orally or in writing.
Counsel for the prosecutor conceded that the dialogue between the Commissioner and the representative for the Association did not constitute the giving of reasons. This concession was properly made in my view. It accords with authority that comments in transcript are no substitute for reasons in a decision: Allplastics Engineering Pty Ltd v Dornoch Ltd [2006] NSWCA 33 at [41] (Tobias JA with whom Santow JA agreed); Lord v Flight Centre Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 188 at [10] (Schmidt J). Exchanges between counsel and Bench made in argument do not form part of reasons: Ahmad v R [2022] NSWCCA 144 at [20] (Mitchelmore JA with whom Meagher JA and Bellew J agreed).
However, I disagree with the submissions of counsel for the prosecutor that "the Commissioner's failure to give reasons is unsurprising, given the urgency with which the matters were brought to the Commission, in particular with regard to the February Orders". As I noted above, the obligation to give reasons is not a burdensome one and there was ample time for the Commission to make brief reasons for both the First and Second Disputes.
I note that in both FBEU v FRNSW [2012] and NUW v TNT the Commission gave reasons when industrial action had already begun and was occurring concurrently with the arbitration proceedings in the Commission.
With respect to the February Orders, which was most pressed for time, the Commission made the orders at or around 4:00pm on 14 February 2022. The prosecutor drew my attention to the evidence, which showed that the earliest strike action would begin at the Western Sydney LHD on the morning shift for nurses and midwives, which is at 7:00am on 15 February 2022.
I take on judicial notice that the Commission closes at 5:00pm on weekdays and has an after hours emergency contact service that can be utilised when strike action has been initiated and the urgent intervention of the Commission is required: see Industrial Relations Commission, "Contact Us" (accessed 4 August 2022). Whilst I accept that there was great urgency on the day that the February Orders were made, there was ample time for the Commission to give succinct reasons like those in FBEU v FRNSW [2012] and NUW v TNT.
With respect to the March Orders, the orders were made on 25 March 2022 for proposed strike action on 31 March 2022. I consider that there was more than ample time to give reasons as well.
The prosecutor submitted that the defendant could have asked for reasons but "chose not to". To the extent that that is itself a reason to not find error, I reject that submission. First, although the evidence shows that the defendant did not ask for reasons at the hearing, I see nothing to suggest that the defendant made an active choice to waive the requirement to give reasons. Secondly, I reject the premise that the obligation to give reasons is enlivened only when there is a request from the losing party. The giving of reasons or, alternatively, reserving reasons to be delivered at a later date is an incident of the arbitral process that leads to the making of dispute orders. Even where the parties have a statutory right to request written reasons but do not do so, the basis for generally requiring reasons "may be of less significance but it continues to apply": Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 at [53] (Wright J, President, Deputy President Westgarth and Principal Member Harrowell) (referring to s 62(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)).
Where there is an obligation to give reasons and the decision-maker does not give any reasons or gives inadequate reasons, that is an error of law on the face of the record (which includes any reasons given: Supreme Court Act s 69(4)). Certiorari will ordinarily be available, subject to any privative clause, to remove the legal consequences of an opinion for which non-compliant reasons have been given: Wingfoot at 493 [28] (French CJ, Crennan, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ).

[42]

Relevant Authorities

The question that then follows is whether the Commission's failure to give reasons constitutes jurisdictional error. The issue of when an error is "jurisdictional" was recently considered in Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2021] NSWCA 337. Bell P (as the Chief Justice then was, with whom Basten, Leeming and Beech-Jones JJA agreed) stated at [35]-[36]: [35] Whilst jurisdictional error may be described as an error of law, not every error of law will be "jurisdictional" or amount to jurisdictional error. This is not a matter of semantics. It is of cardinal importance. An error of law made within jurisdiction is not a jurisdictional error: Gibson v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (No 2) [2021] NSWCA 218 at [31]-[33], [48]-[53], [64] (Gibson) citing Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales v New South Wales (2014) 242 IR 338; [2014] NSWCA 116; Shade Systems Pty Ltd v Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) (2016) 95 NSWLR 157; [2016] NSWCA 379. [36] As Basten JA (with whom Bathurst CJ and Beazley P agreed) observed in Wang v Farkas (2014) 85 NSWLR 390; [2014] NSWCA 29 at [42], echoing the observations of Kirby P in Anderson set out above: "If every error of law constituted jurisdictional error, particularly in the case of a court such as the District Court, judicial review would transmogrify into an appeal for error of law, without regard to the requirement that certiorari is available only for error of law on the face of the record, and, in the case of a privative clause, only where an error is properly characterised as jurisdictional." To adopt an overly broad and open-ended conception of jurisdictional error would be illegitimately to emasculate the operation of privative clauses, denuding them of their intended effect, contrary to the requirements of purposive statutory construction.
In Quinn v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (2021) 106 NSWLR 154; [2021] NSWCA 294, Leeming JA (with whom Simpson AJA and Johnson J agreed) stated at 158-159 [5]-[6]: [5] The focus at all times is jurisdictional. Jurisdiction in this sense is best understood as the body's authority to decide. Jurisdictional error turns on the limits of the authority that has been conferred on the body. In Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 264 CLR 123; [2018] HCA 34 at [24], Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Keane JJ gave this description: "Jurisdictional error, in the most generic sense in which it has come to be used to describe an error in a statutory decision-making process, correspondingly refers to a failure to comply with one or more statutory preconditions or conditions to an extent which results in a decision which has been made in fact lacking characteristics necessary for it to be given force and effect by the statute pursuant to which the decision-maker purported to make it. To describe a decision as 'involving jurisdictional error' is to describe that decision as having been made outside jurisdiction." [6] Useful guidance may also be found in the joint judgment of Basten, Ward and McCallum JJA in Bangura v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2020] NSWCA 138 at [13]: "Jurisdictional error arises where the decision-maker has misunderstood the limits of his or her legal authority or has otherwise acted outside the scope of that authority, or failed to exercise the powers conferred by that authority. A failure to accord a party procedural fairness in a material respect will constitute jurisdictional error, because procedural fairness is an essential characteristic of the exercise of judicial power, being the power exercised by the District Court judge in the present case."
In PSA v Treasury Secretary [2014], Basten JA (with whom Ward JA, as her Honour then was, and Bergin CJ at Eq) held at 331 [48] that: Failure to comply with a legal obligation to give reasons will constitute "error of law" (Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 at 388; Osmond at 666; Wingfoot at [28]), but not all such legal errors constitute "jurisdictional error". In the context of an entirely statutory jurisdiction, it is necessary to ask whether a failure to comply with the legal obligation invalidates the decision. That is a question of statutory construction: Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at [41]. Three factors follow from the acceptance of that proposition. First, decisions with respect to other statutory schemes may be of limited value. Secondly, where the legal obligation arises as a matter of implication, to demand a further level of legal implication may appear artificial. Thirdly, to the extent that the Parliament has not specifically addressed the issue, it may be taken to have assumed the courts will approach the matter in accordance with principles articulated in case law. (The third factor partly qualifies the first, as a consequence of acceptance of the second).
In Soliman, which I have explained above is analogous to this case, Marshall, North and Flick JJ held at [50]-[51] that: [50] A failure to comply with a statutory obligation to provide reasons may constitute an error of law but it does not follow that a failure to do so constitutes jurisdictional error sufficient to warrant setting a decision aside either in whole or in part: Kennedy v Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2009) 182 FCR 411. See also: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (2009) 179 FCR 554 at [45]-[49] per Bennett, Flick and McKerracher JJ; Sherlock v Lloyd (2008) 30 VAR 105 per Kyrou J. [51] In circumstances such as the present, where there is no statutory requirement to provide either reasons or findings of fact, it would be difficult to conclude that a failure to do so constitutes jurisdictional error such as to warrant the decision of the Vice President being set aside. A similar reservation was expressed in MZYPW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 289 ALR 541 at [21] per Flick and Jagot JJ.
In Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme (2003) 216 CLR 212; [2003] HCA 56 ("Palme"), the Minister exercised a power under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Migration Act") to cancel a visa on the basis that the Minister reasonably suspected that the visa holder did not pass a test known as the "character test". Section 501G of the Migration Act required the Minister to give the person affected by the decision written notice of the decision and of the reasons for the decision. The same section provided that a failure to comply with the requirement to give notice and reasons for the decision did not affect the validity of the decision.
The majority concluded that although the Minister had failed to provide adequate reasons, that failure did not constitute jurisdictional error so as to invalidate his decision to cancel the visa. Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Heydon JJ expressed their reasoning at 225 [44]-[46] in the following terms: [44] Here, the question is whether the step under s 501G which logically and temporally succeeds the making of a decision in exercise of a power is a condition precedent to that exercise. The possibility that this is so may be conceded. But, as Project Blue Sky emphasised, the answer depends upon the construction of the Act to determine whether it was a purpose of the Act that an act done or not done, in breach of the provision, should be invalid. This gives rise to several immediate difficulties for the prosecutor. [45] First, 'the act' upon which the prosecutor fixes for relief by way of certiorari and prohibition is not the failure to give the written notice required by s 501G, but the exercise of the power of visa cancellation conferred by s 501(2). Secondly, the Act deals expressly in s 501G(4) with the interrelation between cancellation and notification. The stipulation it makes is that a failure in notification does not of itself affect the validity of the cancellation. [46] The cancellation decision may still be reviewed under s 75(v) of the Constitution for jurisdictional error otherwise arising. The prosecutor's attack, albeit unsuccessful, for denial of natural justice is an immediate example. But failure in the notification required by s 501G does not impeach the cancellation decision for jurisdictional error.
At [55], McHugh J expressed his reasoning in the following terms: The prosecutor contends that the Minister's failure to give reasons constitutes jurisdictional error with the result that the Minister had no jurisdiction or power to cancel the visa. Jurisdiction is the authority to decide. It is not easy to accept the notion that a decision is made without authority because subsequently the decision maker fails to give reasons for the decision. Nevertheless, it is always possible that a statutory scheme has made the giving of reasons a condition precedent to the validity of a decision. If it has, a decision that does not give reasons will be made without authority. Whether a scheme has that effect is determined by applying the principles stated by this Court in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority. In Project Blue Sky, the majority Justices rejected the traditional distinction between 'mandatory' and 'directory' requirements, saying that '[a] better test for determining the issue of validity is to ask whether it was a purpose of the legislation that an act done in breach of the provision should be invalid'. In determining the purpose of the legislation, regard has to be had to 'the language of the relevant provision and the scope and object of the whole statute'. In this case, it is beyond argument that the Act did not intend that failure to comply with s 501G should invalidate the decision to cancel a visa. Section 501G(4) of the Act states that '[a] failure to comply with this section in relation to a decision does not affect the validity of the decision'.
In Seiffert v Prisoners Review Board [2011] WASCA 148 ("Seiffert"), the Western Australian Court of Appeal applied the principles in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 ("Project Blue Sky") to determine whether the Prisoners Review Board had failed to exercise its jurisdiction in failing to give reasons for a decision to cancel a parole order. This was illuminated at [178] when Martin CJ (with whom McLure P and Murphy JA agreed) stated that: In my opinion the strongest guide to the intention of the legislature on this issue is that provided by s 5B of the Act. As I have noted, that section provides that the safety of the community is to be the paramount consideration in the exercise of all functions under the Act. Decisions to cancel parole will often be made, as in this case, on the basis of the Board's perception of the risk to the community if the parolee remains at large. In that decision making context, a construction of the Act which would make the provision of adequate reasons a condition of the valid exercise of the power to cancel parole would produce the consequence that a subsequent judicial determination to the effect that the reasons provided were inadequate would necessarily result in the conclusion that the decision to cancel parole was invalid (subject to any discretionary reasons to deny relief), with the consequence that the parolee would be immediately entitled to his or her liberty, having been unlawfully detained during the period required for the judicial determination. Such a consequence is fundamentally inconsistent with Parliament's express stipulation that community safety is to be the paramount consideration in the exercise of all functions performed under the Act. This consideration in particular leads me to conclude that, construing the Act as a whole in accordance with the principles enunciated in Project Blue Sky, it should not be concluded that the provision of adequate reasons is a precondition to the valid exercise of the Board's power to cancel parole. In other words, the Board's failure to provide adequate reasons for its decision, did not amount to jurisdictional error.
After reviewing the authorities, Basten JA stated in PSA v Treasury Secretary [2014], which as noted above concerned the obligation of the Full Bench of the Commission to give reasons, at 333 [57]-[58] that: [57] There is nothing in this state of the authorities which might suggest that, in maintaining silence as to any obligation to give reasons and as to the consequence of a failure to provide reasons, the State legislature implicitly assumed or accepted that invalidity would follow. The contrary implication is to be preferred. [58] Assuming that the reasons provided by the Full Bench for setting aside the order made by the single member were inadequate to constitute compliance with the legal obligation, such a conclusion would not avail the applicants in the present case. They can succeed only on the basis of jurisdictional error and an error of the kind assumed, under the applicable statutory scheme, would not invalidate the decision.

[43]

Li v Attorney General

It is necessary to explore further the decision of Li v A-G given the reliance on this decision by the defendant.
Mr Li had been sentenced to 19 years and 6 months imprisonment after pleading guilty to supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. He made an application for an inquiry into his sentence under Pt 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW). It is noted that ss 78 or 79 of that Act does not expressly require the decision-maker to give reasons. A Judge of this Court dismissed the application.
Mr Li sought judicial review of the decision on the basis that the Judge had not given his own opinion and had copied from the Attorney General's submissions opposing his application.
The majority in the Court of Appeal, Basten and White JJA, held that the reasons provided no basis to find that the decision-maker had failed to form the relevant opinion and that the reasons sufficiently demonstrated that the decision-maker did not fail to consider relevant materials: at 637 [23], 640 [37] (Basten JA with whom White JA agreed at 647 [69]). Their Honours also held that the reasons were not inadequate in their terms: at 644 [54] (Basten JA with whom White JA agreed at 647 [69]). The majority dismissed the application for judicial review.
Brereton JA dissented and held that reasons must demonstrate that the decision-maker engaged with and gave independent consideration to the submissions presented. His Honour considered that this may not be satisfied if one party's submissions are extensively replicated into a judge's reasons: at 664 [131]-[132]. His Honour found that the decision-maker had mirrored the Attorney General's submissions and stated at 666 [141] and 667 [144]: [141] … I accept that, as a matter of substance, the words of the Attorney's submissions in chief, as incorporated in the judge's reasons, functionally sufficiently addressed those issues. However, the adoption of the Attorney's characterisation of the applicant's case, and then of the Attorney's disposal of it, contributes to the creation of an impression that his Honour did not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the application. … [144] In my view, therefore, the extent of the unattributed reproduction of the Attorney's submissions, particularly in respect of the formulation of the applicant's case and its disposal, is such as to create an appearance, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the unsuccessful applicant, that his application did not receive proper independent and impartial consideration.
Brereton JA then turned to consider whether there was a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction. At 669 [152]-[153], his Honour stated: [152] A failure to give adequate reasons, where there is an obligation to do so, is a failure to properly perform the function of the decision-maker and to conduct the proceeding in accordance with proper processes - analogous to a denial of procedural fairness, or a failure to direct attention to and only to relevant considerations - and thus a species of jurisdictional error in the broad sense. In LVR, failure by a decision-maker to bring their own mind to bear on the issues was characterised as a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction. … [153] It follows that the failure to give reasons which sufficiently demonstrate that the judge's own independent and impartial mind has been brought to bear on the issues is a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction.
Brereton JA stated his conclusions at 671 [161] as follows: (1) The extensive unattributed use made by the judge of the Attorney's submissions is calculated to create in the mind of a reasonable person in the position of the unsuccessful applicant a justified sense of grievance that his submissions had not been fully absorbed and analysed, and that the judge had not brought his own independent and impartial mind to bear on the issues, and thus there is an appearance that justice has not been done. (2) Where reasons for decision leave the appearance that justice has not been done, there is a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction. (3) Such an error vitiates the decision, regardless of whether it was objectively correct, or whether there were issues of fact or law raised by competing submissions which required resolution.
Before I turn to consider this decision, I note that there is ample authority that the reasons of a dissenting judge does not contribute to the ratio decidendi: Federation Insurance Ltd v Wasson (1987) 163 CLR 303 at 314 (Mason CJ, Wilson, Dawson and Toohey JJ) ("Wasson"); Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395; [1998] HCA 48 at [56] (Kirby J); Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512; [2001] HCA 29 at [112] (Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
In Holmes a Court v Papaconstuntinos [2011] Aust Torts Reports 82-081; [2011] NSWCA 59, Allsop P (as his Honour then was, with whom Beazley and Tobias JJA, as Her Excellency then was, agreed) stated at [3]: [T]here is no justification in point of precedent in applying a dissenting judgment in the High Court as an exposition of the principle embodied in the common law of Australia, at least in the absence of clear adoption of it by a majority of the High Court or in the absence of it being clearly understood as a statement of uncontested principle. No doubt many dissenting judgments in the High Court, or in an intermediate appellate court, may contain valuable discussions of legal principle. That, however, is a different thing to being taken as an exposition of the common law to be applied. Although Allsop P was referring to dissenting judgments in the High Court, I see no reason why this observation would not apply to dissenting judgments in the Court of Appeal. Allsop P's observations was recently cited approvingly by Basten JA in Sparks v Hobson; Gray v Hobson (2018) 361 ALR 115; [2018] NSWCA 29 at 124 [38].
Nevertheless, I accept that a judgment of dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal can be persuasive and should be accorded great weight in circumstances where the other judges did not opine or contradict them on the issue.
In Li v A-G, Brereton JA found that a failure to give adequate reasons may be a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction or denial of natural justice and thus amount to jurisdictional error. His Honour's conclusion that a failure to give adequate reasons amounted to jurisdictional error was not opined on by the majority judges.
I do not read Brereton JA's reasons as suggesting that there is a universal rule that a failure to give reasons would amount to jurisdictional error, assuming, of course, that there was a duty in the first place to provide reasons. Indeed, I consider his Honour's observations at 670-671 [159] distinguishing Palme to highlight that his Honour regarded the statutory scheme and unique circumstances of each case to be significant.
I have carefully reviewed and considered Brereton JA's analysis. It is clear that Brereton JA had considered broader issues stemming from what his Honour described as the "deficient" reasons of the decision-maker (at 667 [143]), including whether they demonstrate that the decision-maker had given serious consideration to Mr Li's submissions and contentions, and brought to bear an independent and impartial judgment. It was only when these broader issues, which went beyond the mere failure to provide adequate reasons, were considered that Brereton JA concluded that the decision fell into jurisdictional error and was void.
In this respect, Brereton JA's analysis can be distinguished from how the parties argued the present case at the hearing. To the extent that the failure to give reasons also demonstrated that the Commissioner did not consider the substantial submissions and contentions of the defendant, that was argued as a separate alleged error.
In any case, to the extent that Brereton JA espouses a new test or standard in the sense that "[w]here reasons for decision leave the appearance that justice has not been done, there is a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction", I do not consider that to be authoritative and binding. This is because it is at odds with the decision of the Judges of Appeal in the majority. Basten JA stated that, whilst the phrase "justice is not seen to have been done" was intended to be a test of the adequacy of reasons, this is not a free-standing ground of review or a test of the validity of judicial, let alone administrative, decision-making: at 644 [56]-[57].
Likewise, White JA stated at 648 [77] that: I accept that a judge who did not bring an independent and impartial mind to bear on an application under s 78 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act would commit jurisdictional error that would render the judge's decision liable to be declared void. But I do not accept that the relevant yardstick is whether there is an appearance that justice has been done by the bringing to bear of an active, impartial and independent judicial mind, nor that it is sufficient to establish jurisdictional error that the substantial adoption of the Attorney's submissions contributed to the creation of an "impression" that the judge did not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the application.
The dissent by Brereton JA has not been followed in subsequent decisions of the Court of Appeal: see, eg, Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW (2020) 103 NSWLR 479; [2020] NSWCA 165 at [34] (Basten JA).
Although Li v A-G was directed to the content and adequacy of reasons, that decision is applicable to this judgment insofar that it relates to whether the failure to give reasons (by giving none or inadequate reasons) amounts to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction and jurisdictional error.
The written submissions filed by counsel for the defendant quoted several whole paragraphs from the decision of Brereton JA at great length to support his argument. At no point did counsel for the defendant allude, in either his written or oral submissions, to the fact that Brereton JA was in dissent. Nor did counsel for the defendant draw this Court's attention to the views of the Judges of Appeal in the majority.
I am bound to follow the decisions of the majority when members of the Court of Appeal are divided: Proctor v Jetway Aviation Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 166 at 177 (Moffitt P); Wasson at 314 (Mason CJ, Wilson, Dawson and Toohey JJ). It follows that the mere failure to give adequate reasons, which may be tested by considering whether justice has been seen to be done, does not, in all cases, result in a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction or jurisdictional error.

[44]

Consideration

Applying the principles in the above authorities, I am of the view that the mere failure to give reasons was an error of law but did not infect the February or March Orders with jurisdictional error.
The analysis of Basten JA (with whom Ward JA, as her Honour then was, and Bergin CJ in Eq) in PSA v Treasury Secretary [2014] at 331-333 [48]-[58] is most directly analogous to the present case. There, the Court of Appeal was reviewing a decision of the Full Bench of the Commission made under the Act. Although the Full Bench was constituted by three judicial members, the Full Bench was exercising non-judicial power in the context of hearing an appeal concerning an unfair dismissal application. Although the legislation has undergone some amendments since 2014, the crux of what the Court of Appeal relied upon at 333 [57], which was the silence in the Act on any duty to give reasons and as to the consequence of a failure to give reasons, has not changed. It follows from what was said at 333 [57]-[58] that the Parliament implicitly assumed or accepted that invalidity would not follow from the failure to give adequate reasons.
In my view, this conclusion is supported by the legislative provisions in the Act. The Act provides that the industrial disputes are to be resolved in a "prompt" manner (s 3(a)); the Commission is "not bound to act in a formal manner" and is to act "without regard to technicalities or legal forms" (s 163); the Commission is to "act as quickly as is practicable" (s 162(2)(a)); and that the Commission may require that the parties' presentation of their cases to be limited (s 162(2)(c)). These provisions all emphasise the informality and urgency that the Commission may act and distinguish it from the rigidity and formality that usually comes with judicial proceedings in a court, where the failure to give reasons takes on a more heightened significance.
When the Commission failed to give reasons, this is often because it is acting quickly, promptly and informally. A construction of the Act which would make the provision of reasons a condition of the valid exercise of the power to make dispute orders would produce the consequence that, on judicial review, this Court would invalidate those dispute orders. This is in circumstances where the Commission was satisfied that the making of dispute orders was appropriate or necessary in the resolution of the industrial dispute. Such a consequence is inconsistent with Parliament's express object to "provide for the resolution of industrial disputes by conciliation and, if necessary, by arbitration in a prompt and fair manner and with a minimum of legal technicality": s 3(g) of the Act; see generally Newcrest at 79 [6(b)] (Walton J, Vice-President).
The provisions of the Act that deal with industrial disputes specifically make this clear. When the Commission fails to give reasons for making dispute orders, especially of the kind in this case to order a person to cease or refrain from taking industrial action under s 137(1)(a) of the Act, it is likely because industrial action is ongoing, threatened or likely. The provisions in ss 135(4), 135(7) and 137(2) of the Act particularly point to Parliament's desire that the Commission act with great expedition when industrial action is ongoing, threatened or likely. To lightly invalidate dispute orders directed at the cessation of industrial action is inconsistent with the powerful public interest evidenced in the Act that those orders should be considered in a timely and orderly way and should not be frustrated: see NUW v TNT (Fisher P, Bauer and Hungerford JJ and Commissioner Buckley).
Thus, the proper construction of construing the Act as a whole in accordance with the principles enunciated by the High Court in Project Blue Sky, and consistent with Martin CJ's analysis in Seiffert, leads to the conclusion that the provision of reasons is not a precondition to the valid exercise of the Commission's power to make dispute orders.
I emphasise that my decision in the preceding paragraph is narrowly limited to when the Commission makes dispute orders in arbitration. It does not lay down a general rule that a failure to give reasons by the Commission in all cases, whether that be awards, unfair dismissal, wage cases and the like, would all be within jurisdiction.
In conclusion, the Commissioner's failure to provide reasons when making both the February and March Orders was an error made within jurisdiction. Under s 179 of the Act, a decision of the Commission with an error of this kind remains "final" and this Court cannot invalidate the dispute orders on this ground.
Although judicial review to quash dispute orders on the sole ground that the Commission has not given reasons may not be available, I note that an aggrieved party may be able to appeal to the Full Bench. In Stegbar Pty Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of New South Wales (2008) 173 IR 350; [2008] NSWIRComm 104 ("Stegbar v TWU"), the Full Bench held that the "inadequacy of reasons may…be enough in itself to establish [leave to] appeal": at 359 [45] (Walton J, Vice-President, Marks J and Commissioner Connor). The Full Bench granted leave to appeal because "the inadequacy of reasons…opened, in our view, at least, the prospect for real issues in relation to the compensation question". This was so notwithstanding that there was no apparent error in the ultimate conclusions reached by the Contract of Carriage Tribunal nor any matter of general principle which would apply to proceedings before the Tribunal nor would it affect persons or parties other than the parties to these proceedings in a general way and the Full Bench would have ordinarily refused leave to appeal: at 359 [44].
The Full Bench has placed emphasis on the failure to give reasons as a basis for granting leave, as seen in Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union (NSW) (on behalf of Rosanna Ganino) v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWIRComm 106 (Walton J, Vice-President, Staff and Backman JJ), Byrne v Rail Corporation of NSW [2012] NSWIRComm 117 (Walton J, Vice-President, Staff and Backman JJ) and Buchtmann (Walton J, Vice-President, Deputy Presidents Sams and Grayson).
I see no reason to believe that Stegbar v TWU at 359 [43]-[44] would not be followed by the Commission as presently constituted given the authorities on this question. However, it must be noted that the mere raising of this ground will not be sufficient. Leave would not be granted if the ground is unlikely to be made good on the evidence: Qureshi v De Haas (No 2) [2009] NSWIRComm 139 at [23] (Boland J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Marks J); Margaritte Joanne Colefax v Secretary, Department of Education (No 3) [2019] NSWIRComm 1000 (Chief Commissioner Kite SC, Commissioners Stanton and Sloan).
In light of the above discussion about appeals to the Full Bench, I add a further remark about this consideration. Recently, it was observed by Commissioner Sloan in Transport Secretary v AWU at [24] that: [I]n recent times, the Crown has shown an increased propensity to delay the notification of disputes until the proverbial eleventh hour. This not only places significant pressure on the Commission and its very finite resources; it carries the very real risk that the Commission will be unable to list the matter for hearing in time to deal with the notification and to make any orders in sufficient time to have any utility.
I am not aware of this alleged "increased propensity" by "the Crown". I reach no judgment in that respect. Nor is it clear whether this is a reference to conduct by the Crown Law Officers, State agencies or both. However, if such a practice were to be adopted, then it raises the prospect of inconsistency with the obligation of the State to act as a model litigant: see generally Melbourne Steamship Company Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 at 342 (Griffith CJ). In this respect, I respectfully agree with Basten JA (with whom Giles and Bell JJA, as her Honour then was, agreed) in Mahenthirarasa v State Rail Authority (NSW) (No 2) (2008) 72 NSWLR 273; [2008] NSWCA 201 at 279 [22] that: The principles applicable to a model litigant required [the executive government] to deal with claims promptly, not to cause unnecessary delay, to endeavour to avoid litigation wherever possible, not to resist relief which it believes to be appropriate and not to decline to provide appropriate assistance to the court or tribunal whether expressly sought or not.
Furthermore, the discretion under ss 136 and 137 of the Act to refuse to make dispute orders may be exercised if the party seeking those orders caused a significant, unnecessary and deliberate delay in notifying the dispute and has the effect of frustrating another party's statutory right of appeal by leaving as little time as possible. This is because it would be inconsistent with the objects in s 3 of the Act to allow a party to use the Commission's processes and powers in such a way that the Commission would not be providing a framework of industrial relations that is fair and just.

[46]

Relevant Authorities

In Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57; [2001] HCA 22, Gaudron J, after noting that it was not always easy to distinguish an error of law which is jurisdictional from one that is not, said at [81]: However, the present case is, in my view, a clear case of constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction. That is because the delegate failed to consider the substance of Mr Miah's application and could only have failed to do so because he misunderstood what is involved in the Convention definition of 'refugee'.
The oft-cited case in relation to an alleged failure to respond to a substantial and clearly articulated argument is Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 73 ALD 321; [2003] HCA 26 ("Dranichnikov"). In that case, the appellant, Mr Danichnikov, was a Russian national who applied for a protection visa. His claim for refugee status was on the basis of a fear of persecution in Russia as the result of membership of a particular social group, namely entrepreneurs and businessmen in Russia who publicly criticised law enforcement authorities for failing to take action against crime or criminals. The Refugee Review Tribunal accepted that Mr Dranichnikov had a subjective fear of physical harm, but rejected the applicant's claim for a protection visa on the basis that there was no indication that any persecution he suffered was for reason of membership of the particular social group "businessmen in Russia".
Gummow and Callinan JJ (with whom Hayne J agreed) held that the Tribunal was required to, first, resolve a question of law about whether the group or class to which Mr Dranichnikov claimed to belong was capable of constituting a social group for the purposes of art 1A of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150, entered into force 22 April 1954) and then, if the first question was answered affirmatively, a question of fact as to whether the applicant is a member of that class: at 326 [26].
Their Honours held that the Tribunal failed to decide the first question and instead decided another question: at 326 [27]. It was also concluded that had the question the Tribunal had to resolve been addressed, "it would in all likelihood have permitted of one only answer, an affirmative one" for the case Mr Dranichnikov advanced, it having accepted him "as a witness of credit, and therefore the correctness of his account of his activities, and their climax, the violent assault which he suffered": at 326-327 [28].
Gummow and Callinan JJ held that "[t]o fail to respond to a substantial, clearly articulated argument relying upon established facts was at least to fail to accord Mr Dranichnikov natural justice": at 326 [24]. Hayne J agreed that "the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction, and did not give the applicant natural justice in conducting its review, because it did not consider the claim which the applicant was then making, and had earlier made, for protection": at 340 [95].
Kirby J substantially agreed with the plurality. His Honour explained at 339 [88]: Obviously, it is not every mistake in understanding the facts, in applying the law or in reasoning to a conclusion that will amount to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction. But where, as here, the mistake is essentially definitional, and amounts to a basic misunderstanding of the case brought by an applicant, the resulting flaw is so serious as to undermine the lawfulness of the decision in question in a fundamental way.
In Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Cervantes (2012) 61 MVR 443; [2012] NSWCA 244, Basten JA extrapolated two propositions from Miah and Dranichnikov at 449 [21]-[22] as follows: [21] Two propositions may be drawn from these statements. First, although not articulated in these terms, a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction may arise because the statutory conferral of power has not been exercised according to its terms. Thus, in the present case, s 94 of the [Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)] requires that a claims assessor "is, in respect of a claim referred to the assessor for assessment, to make an assessment of … the amount of damages": s 94(1)(b). It is, therefore, mandatory that the assessor address the claim and carry out the statutory function. [22] The second point is that neither Dranichnikov nor Miah went so far as to imply an obligation to consider every piece of evidence presented. Further, to refer to a report, but not to a particular passage in the report, may indicate an implicit preference for some other material which (in the absence of any no evidence ground) must be accepted as existing to support a particular conclusion. Such a course cannot constitute a failure to take into account a relevant consideration nor a failure to respond to a substantial argument: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS [2010] HCA 48; 243 CLR 164 at [35].
In Ali v AAI Limited (2016) 75 MVR 502; [2016] NSWCA 110 ("Ali v AAI"), Basten JA (with whom Leeming and Simpson JJA agreed) stated at 517 [66]: A statutory obligation to address the substance of an applicant's case will readily be implied, as will an obligation to consider material relied on by an applicant which is, on its face, relevant and significant, and is credible or uncontested. Failure to do so may involve a constructive failure to exercise the function conferred by the statute.
The language in Miah and Ali v AAI is that the decision-maker must "consider" whilst the language in Dranichnikov is "respond". In my view, there is no relevant difference between these two terms when they are understood in context.
In understanding what it means to "consider" an argument or material, this Court can derive assistance from the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451. In that case there was an explicit statutory duty on the Minister under s 10(1)(c) of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) to "consider" a report and any representations attached to it in determining whether or not to make a declaration which would have the effect of protecting a site which the Minister was satisfied had special significance for Aboriginals. The observations of Kiefel J (as her Honour then was) at 495 are particularly apposite: To "consider" is a word having a definite meaning in the judicial context. The intellectual process preceding the decision of which s 10(1)(c) speaks is not different. It requires that the Minister have regard to what is said in the representations, to bring his mind to bear upon the facts stated in them and the arguments or opinions put forward and to appreciate who is making them. From that point the Minister might sift them, attributing whatever weight or persuasive quality is thought appropriate. However, the Minister is required to know what they say …
In Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 267 FCR 628; [2018] FCAFC 225, the Full Court of the Federal Court considered the obligation on the Minister to engage in an active intellectual process with significant and clearly expressed relevant representations made in support of a request to revoke the cancellation of a person's visa. Allsop CJ (with whom Markovic and Steward JJ agreed) held at 630 [3]: Public power, the source of which is in statute, must conform to the requirements of its statutory source and to the limitations imposed by the requirement of legality. Legality in this context takes its form and shape from the terms, scope and policy of the statute and fundamental values anchored in the common law: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton [2016] FCAFC 11; 237 FCR 1 at 5 [9]; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; 357 ALR 408 at 423 [59]. The consequences of these considerations are that where decisions might have devastating consequences visited upon people, the obligation of real consideration of the circumstances of the people affected must be approached confronting what is being done to people. This obligation and the expression of its performance is not a place for decisional checklists or formulaic expression. Mechanical formulaic expression and pre-digested shorthand expressions may hide a lack of the necessary reflection upon the whole consideration of the human consequences involved. Genuine consideration of the human consequences demands honest confrontation of what is being done to people. Such considerations do not detract from, indeed they reinforce, the recognition, in an assessment of legality, that those entrusted with such responsibility be given the freedom of lawful decision-making required by Parliament.
Guidance can also be drawn from the judgment of Henry LJ in Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Limited [2000] 1 WLR 377; [1999] EWCA Civ 811, which was cited approvingly by Sheller JA in Moylan v Nutrasweet [2000] NSWCA 337 at [63]. Henry LJ stated at 382: [W]here the dispute involves something in the nature of an intellectual exchange, with reasons and analysis advanced on either side, the judge must enter into the issues canvassed before him and explain why he prefers one case over the other. This is likely to apply particularly in litigation where as here there is disputed expert evidence.
Consideration must also be given to whether an argument is "substantial" and "clearly articulated". In Insurance Australia Ltd (t/as NRMA Insurance) v Milton (2016) 77 MVR 78; [2016] NSWCA 156, Basten JA stated at 82 [9] that "a "substantial" argument means one which is clearly material or of undoubted relevance".
In DNA17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 146 ("DNA17"), Kerr, Davies and O'Bryan JJ at [53] cited approvingly the observations by Mortimer J in CPE15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 591 at [40], which is as follows: The kind of argument which must have been articulated by an applicant in order for the Tribunal to exceed its jurisdiction by failing to consider it was described by Griffiths J in SZSSC [v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 142 ALD 150; [2014] FCA 863] as "a substantial and clearly articulated argument". In other words, the Tribunal as the decision-maker on the merits must have clearly been put on notice by an applicant of a contention, submission or argument the applicant wished to make in support of a decision in her or his favour on the review. Unless the argument has been "clearly articulated", the Tribunal would not be put on notice. Unless the argument is "substantial", a reviewing court cannot be confident or sufficiently confident that the Tribunal's failure to deal with the argument may have affected or been material to the conclusion it reached. Ultimately the argument put by an applicant in these circumstances must be characterised as capable of affecting the formation of the state of satisfaction required by section 65 of the Migration Act. If it is not so capable, then the Tribunal will not exceed or fail to exercise its jurisdiction in not considering such an argument.

[47]

Dialogue or Exchange with the Bench

It is clear from the authorities that the obligation to respond to a substantial and clearly articulated argument is connected with the obligation to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to a party's case. This latter obligation operates within the Commission's quasi-judicial nature and the adversarial nature of arbitral proceedings. In light of the significant consequences that can stem from the making of dispute orders, I am of the view that there needs to be an active intellectual engagement with the significant arguments actually raised on behalf of the party to whom the dispute orders are directed against and the acceptance of which could constitute a good reason to not make the dispute orders.
What is critical is that the argument was "clearly articulated" in the sense that the decision-maker can be said to have been put on notice of the argument, and "substantial" in the sense that it was capable of altering or clearly material to the decision.
It must be remembered that this ground requires, not just a mere alluding to or passing reference to the argument by the Commission, but consideration or a response. The response must consider and engage with the argument put forward by the party. In my view, a mere dialogue or exchange between counsel and the bench generally would not generally amount to a response as required by the authorities that I have considered above.
It must be remembered that a dialogue or exchange does not constitute the giving of reasons. Judges and Commissioners ask questions from the Bench during oral argument to seek clarification of the precise argument being made by counsel or to test those arguments. This may involve putting a contrary argument so that a judge or Commissioner can elicit a response from counsel. This can sometimes lead to speculation that the Bench is leaning one way. But this kind of speculation is often misguided, dangerous to act upon and should be resisted because it is possible that the Bench may feel persuaded by a party's response or from other parts of the case to ultimately find the other way. Questions or issues from the Bench should not ordinarily be regarded as giving any considered view on a specific point in contention, nor amount to a "response" to a substantial or clearly articulated argument put by a party.
Nevertheless, I do not completely exclude the possibility that exchanges between a member of the Commission and parties in argument can satisfy this requirement. In my view, there is a spectrum that is informed by the specific circumstances (including what was said and exchanged between the parties) and the level of formality in the proceedings.
It is likely that, when the Commission is conciliating an industrial dispute or when making recommendations in conciliation or arbitral proceedings, there can be a conceptual basis to conclude the parties will be sufficiently informed on many occasions by the exchanges between the Commission and parties. This, of course, is subject to the unique circumstances of the case.
On the other hand, in seriously contested arbitral proceedings that have the prospect of making or varying an award that would affect a large cross-section of the workforce, it is difficult to conceive how exchanges between the Commission and parties would suffice unless there is a high degree of informality in the proceeding. See, eg, Electrical Trades Union of Australia v. BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited [2005] NSWIRComm 1065 at [4] (Commissioner Connor).
I am acutely aware that the Act seeks to minimise formality, technicality and excludes the application of the rules of evidence. However, this does not deny that proceedings for an award or dispute order require greater formality commensurate with the nature, subject and consequences of the proceedings. This is particularly because, as I have explained above, the Commission must act judicially. This is consistent with the long-standing practice of the Commission, which has always effected court-like procedures in dealing with awards and dispute orders.
A good example of how this spectrum operates in the context of the Commission is its treatment of the rules of evidence. Although the Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence (s 163(1)(b) of the Act), the Commission has always been careful to bear in mind that "those rules are founded in experience, logic, and above all, common sense" and that "[n]ot to be bound by the rules of evidence does not mean that the acceptance of evidence is thereby unrestrained": PDS Rural Products v Corthorn (1987) 19 IR 153 at 155 (Fisher P, Bauer and Glynn JJ) ("PDS Rural Products"); see also Amalgamated Metal Workers Union v Electricity Commission (NSW) (1989) 28 IR 155 at 161 (Fisher P, Varnum DP, Hill J and Chief Commissioner Harrison). In PDS Rural Products, the Full Commission stated: What s 83 [of the Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 (NSW), which is now relevantly contained in s 163(1) of the Act] does do in appropriate cases is to relieve the Commission of the need to observe the technicalities of the law of evidence. Common sense, as well as the rules of evidence, dictates that only evidence relevant to an issue which requires determination in order to decide the case should be received."
In Van Huisstede v Commissioner of Police (2000) 98 IR 57; [2000] NSWIRComm 97, I explained at 96 [160] that: [A]lthough the Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence, this does not mean that the admission of evidence is unrestrained. Commonsense dictates that the Commission receive only evidence which is relevant to an issue which requires determination in order to decide the case: see PDS Rural Products Ltd v Corthorn (1987) 19 IR 153 at 155. The requirement that the Commission "inform itself on any matter in any way that it considers to be just" (s163(1)(b)) and exercise its functions according to "equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case" (s163(1)(c)) demand that it consider any unfairness or prejudice which would be suffered by a party as a result of the admission of certain evidence.
For example, in Davis v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1998) 81 IR 364, Cahill J (Vice-President), Hill and Maidment JJ, and Commissioner Redman held at 375 that, when dealing with allegations of victimisation, the Commission should adopt formal procedures and the rules of evidence having regard to the nature of those applications.
Similarly, the fact that the Commission is not obliged to act in a formal manner does not prevent the Commission imposing onuses and burdens of proof on certain parties: Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales v Industrial Relations Secretary of New South Wales (2021) 306 IR 89; [2021] NSWCA 64 at 105 [57] (Bathurst CJ, Bell P, as the Chief Justice then was, and Leeming JA). The onus borne by a party in the context of award-making was described by Kite AJ in Transport Industry - General Carriers Contract Determination (2016) 257 IR 294; [2016] NSWIRComm 3 at 303 [34]-[35] in these terms: [34] It has long been recognized that Industrial Tribunals are in a different position to the general courts. The duty of the Commission is to make an award or determination which prescribes fair and reasonable rates and conditions. In doing so the Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence or to act in a formal manner but 'is to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities or legal forms.' See s 163 (1)(c) of the Act. [35] The various authorities referring to the 'onus' born[e] by a party are to be understood in that context. There must be information before the Commission which allows it to be satisfied that the determination or award, if made, will provide just and reasonable rates and conditions. The assessment of the adequacy of that material will vary according to the nature of the case, including the degree of consent, before the Commission: see In re Butchers, Wholesale (Cumberland) Award [[1971] AR (NSW) 425] especially at 437-440.
For example, it is well-established that existing awards of the Commission are presumed to set fair and reasonable conditions of employment for employees because they were made in conformity with the obligations imposed upon the Commission under s 10 of the Act: Re Pastoral Industry (State) Award; Application by Australian Business Industrial for a new award and another matter (2001) 104 IR 168; [2001] NSWIRComm 27 at 171 [14] (Walton J, Vice-President, Schmidt J, Deputy President Grayson and Commissioner Connor) ("Re Pastoral Industry Award"); City of Sydney Award at [12] (Walton J, President, Commissioners Stanton and Newall). Thus, where a party seeks to alter an award, they have the onus of demonstrating, on the evidence, that the existing award does not provide fair and reasonable conditions of employment: Re Storeworkers - IGA Distribution Pty Ltd New South Wales Distribution Centres Award 2002 (2002) 124 IR 1; [2002] NSWIRComm 156 at 11 [42] (Walton J, Vice-President, Deputy President Harrison and Commissioner Patterson). Whether the conditions of employment in the award are fair and reasonable is a primary test for evaluating whether an award should be altered: Re Club Employees (State) Award (2002) 122 IR 272; [2002] NSWIRComm 362 at 323 [102] (Wright J, President, Boland J, Deputy President Sams and Commissioner Redman); Re Operational Ambulance Officers (State) Award (2001) 113 IR 384; [2001] NSWIRComm 331 at 418 [164] (Walton J, Vice-President, Deputy President Grayson and Commissioner McLeay).
Hence, I am of the view that a dialogue or exchange between the Bench and the parties would not suffice to amount to consideration or a response to a clearly articulated, substantial argument given the higher level of formality that the Commission accords to arbitral proceedings for dispute orders. This is fortified in the First and Second Disputes given that witnesses were called to give evidence, documents were formally tendered and substantive arguments were made in a seriously contested proceeding.
There is obvious difficulty for courts to deal with this ground when no reasons are given as is the case for both the February and March Orders. In PSA v Treasury Secretary [2014], Basten JA stated at 333 [59]: There can be no doubt that "if the decision-maker does not give any reason for his decision, the Court may be able to infer that he had no good reason": Osmond at 663-664; Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 at 1053-1054; Palme at [39]. As further stated by Brennan J in O'Brien at 446, echoing the reasoning of Dixon J in Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353 at 360: If a failure to give adequate reasons for making an administrative decision warrants an inference that the tribunal has failed in some respect to exercise its powers according to law (as, for example, by taking account of irrelevant considerations or by failing to consider material issues or facts), the court may act upon the inference and set the decision aside. In such a case, the exercise of the statutory power to make a decision is held invalid not because of a failure to state the reasons for making the decision, but because of a failure to make the decision according to law.
Similarly, in WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 236 FCR 593, French, Sackville and Hely JJ (as their Honours then were) stated at 604-605 [47]): The inference that the [Refugee Review] Tribunal has failed to consider an issue may be drawn from its failure to expressly deal with that issue in its reasons. But that is an inference not too readily to be drawn where the reasons are otherwise comprehensive and the issue has at least been identified at some point. It may be that it is unnecessary to make a finding on a particular matter because it is subsumed in findings of greater generality or because there is a factual premise upon which a contention rests which has been rejected. Where however there is an issue raised by the evidence advanced on behalf of an applicant and contentions made by the applicant and that issue, if resolved one way, would be dispositive of the Tribunal's review of the delegate's decision, a failure to deal with it in the published reasons may raise a strong inference that it has been overlooked.

[48]

Jurisdictional Error

As stated by Leeming JA (with whom Meagher JA agreed) in Tonab Investments Pty Ltd v Optima Developments Pty Ltd (2015) 90 NSWLR 268; [2015] NSWCA 287 at 291 [121], "[a] failure to address a substantial component of a party's case can amount to jurisdictional error". There is some consideration as to whether a failure to address a substantial, clearly articulated argument may amount to a failure to afford procedural fairness or, as the defendant submitted in this Court, to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction.
In the passages extracted above from Dranichnikov, Gummow and Callinan JJ expressed that a failure to consider a substantial, clearly articulated argument meant there was a failure to accord natural justice. Hayne J also expressed the same view.
However, more recent authorities from the Court of Appeal favour the view that a failure to respond to a substantial and clearly articulated argument amounts to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction. In Resource Pacific Pty Ltd v Wilkinson [2013] NSWCA 33, Basten JA (with whom Beazley JA, as Her Excellency then was, agreed) noted at [9] that: The term 'constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction' is used to describe a situation where the court has purported to resolve the parties' dispute but has not in fact done so. Thus, particularly with a court or tribunal required to provide reasons for its decision, it may become apparent from those reasons that a material issue has simply not been addressed or that material evidence has been overlooked. Examples of circumstances which may properly give rise to a concern on this kind were referred to by Gummow ACJ and Kiefel J (as her Honour then was) in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; 240 CLR 611 at [23]. On occasion, the function of the decision-maker (which should include a court) has been identified as being to "give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the case": Kahn v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1987) 14 ALD 291 (Gummow J). (The language probably derived from its use in equity to describe the proper exercise by a trustee of a discretionary power in relation to the trust.)
In State Super SAS Trustee Corporation v Cornes [2013] NSWCA 257, Basten JA (with whom McColl JA and Preston CJ of LEC agreed) also observed at [11] that: [A] mistake in understanding the facts, applying the law and reasoning to a conclusion could amount to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction if it revealed 'a basic misunderstanding of the case brought by an applicant, [so that] the resulting flaw is so serious as to undermine the lawfulness of the decision in question in a fundamental way': Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; 77 ALJR 1088 at [88] (Kirby J), referred to in Goodwin v Commissioner of Police [2012] NSWCA 379 at [20].
Most recently, in Day v SAS Trustee Corporation [2021] NSWCA 71, Meagher JA, after reviewing the authorities on the constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, stated at [37] that: As those decisions illustrate, a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction (or a purported exercise, in the sense that there is an appearance of an exercise of jurisdiction) as alleged by the appellant is not a mere failure to consider evidence or to address an argument or submission, which may be contingent or otherwise insignificant, but a failure to understand and determine a case or claim. The ultimate question is whether a failure to consider and address certain issues or arguments involved a failure to address central or critical elements of the case or claim: compare, in relation to failures to consider evidence, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT (2013) 212 FCR 99; [2013] FCA 317 at [69], [111]. It will be insufficient for the appellant to show that his "three key issues" were not stated and determined discretely. What he must show is that they raised "substantial" (in the sense of clearly material) arguments or questions which the primary judge in substance failed to address…
Furthermore, in DNA17, Kerr, Davies and O'Bryan JJ held at [54]: [T]he failure to consider an argument will only constitute a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, and thereby jurisdictional error, if the argument is substantial in the sense that it is capable of altering the decision. In that sense, the requirement of substantiality is equivalent to considering whether the failure is material to the outcome…The degree of consideration which is necessary for jurisdiction to have been exercised is affected by the significance of the submission made to the decision-maker. In that regard, it is necessary to have regard to the whole of the decision-maker's reasons and the issues considered.
Therefore, if it is shown that the Association's representatives made a substantial and clearly articulated argument that was not considered or responded to by the Commissioner, that may amount to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction and thus jurisdictional error.
In addressing whether or not there has been a failure to respond to a substantial, clearly articulated argument made a party, the concern of the law in this area is to avoid "practical injustice": Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 6 at 13-14 [37] (Gleeson CJ); Rodger v De Gelder (2015) 71 MVR 514; [2015] NSWCA 211 at 532 [93] (Gleeson JA with whom Macfarlan and Leeming JJA agreed); AAI Ltd trading as GIO as agent for the Nominal Defendant v McGiffen (2016) 77 MVR 348; [2016] NSWCA 229 at 360 [51] (Meagher, Simpson and Payne JJA).
The defendant acknowledged that there can be an aspect of "materiality" of the kind described in Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 264 CLR 123; [2018] HCA 34 ("Hossain"). With respect, I agree with Kerr, Davies and O'Bryan JJ in DNA17 at [54] that "the requirement of substantiality is equivalent to considering whether the failure is material to the outcome". Their Honours stated at [54] that: [T]he failure to consider an argument will only constitute a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, and thereby jurisdictional error, if the argument is substantial in the sense that it is capable of altering the decision. … As the Full Federal Court recently observed in Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 3 at [35]-[37], the ultimate concern is with the identification of jurisdictional error: the review body not performing the function entrusted to it or not performing it in an authorised way. The degree of consideration which is necessary for jurisdiction to have been exercised is affected by the significance of the submission made to the decision-maker. In that regard, it is necessary to have regard to the whole of the decision-maker's reasons and the issues considered.
In Hossain, Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Keane JJ found that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had erred in construing and applying the criterion relating to the timing of the making of an application. However, their Honours held that this did not amount to jurisdictional error because the breach could have "made no difference to the decision which the Tribunal in fact made": at 136 [35].
The plurality held at 134 [30]-[31]: [30] Whilst a statute on its proper construction might set a higher or lower threshold of materiality, the threshold of materiality would not ordinarily be met in the event of a failure to comply with a condition if complying with the condition could have made no difference to the decision that was made in the circumstances in which that decision was made. The threshold would not ordinarily be met, for example, where a failure to afford procedural fairness did not deprive the person who was denied an opportunity to be heard of "the possibility of a successful outcome", or where a decision-maker failed to take into account a mandatory consideration which in all the circumstances was "so insignificant that the failure to take it into account could not have materially affected" the decision that was made. [31] Thus, as it was put in Wei v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [(2015) 257 CLR 22 at 32 [23]], "[j]urisdictional error … consists of a material breach of an express or implied condition of the valid exercise of a decision-making power conferred by that Act". Ordinarily, as here, breach of a condition cannot be material unless compliance with the condition could have resulted in the making of a different decision.
In MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021) 390 ALR 590; [2021] HCA 17, Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ explained at 592 [2]: Materiality was subsequently explained in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA [(2019) 264 CLR 421; [2019] HCA 3] to involve a realistic possibility that the decision in fact made could have been different had the breach of the condition not occurred. Existence or non-existence of a realistic possibility that the decision could have been different was explained to be a question of fact in respect of which the plaintiff in an application for judicial review of the decision on the ground of jurisdictional error bears the onus of proof.
The plurality explained that the plaintiff in an application for judicial review (which would be the defendant in this case as they are seeking to attack the validity of the Commission's orders) must "bear the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities all the historical facts necessary to sustain the requisite reasonable conjecture": at 600 [39]. The plurality explained: The burden of the plaintiff is not to prove on the balance of probabilities that a different decision would have been made had there been compliance with the condition that was breached. But the burden of the plaintiff is to prove on the balance of probabilities the historical facts necessary to enable the court to be satisfied of the realistic possibility that a different decision could have been made had there been compliance with that condition.

[49]

The February Orders are Infected with Jurisdictional Error

In the First Dispute, the Association advanced a number of contentions as to why the Commission should not make dispute orders of the kind sought by the Secretary. There are two arguments that I consider to be particularly significant.
First, Ms Davis submitted to the Commission that the Secretary had delayed notifying the dispute to the Commission. In cross-examination, Ms Allen accepted that the Secretary had, in fact, been aware of the threatened industrial action on 15 February 2022 since 4 February 2022. The transcript records the following exchange: Q. Just to confirm that you have been made aware of individual branches of the Association voting to take industrial action since 4 February and that you didn't bring this matter to the Commission or notify this Commission until Friday of last week? That's correct isn't it? A. Yes.
Ms Davis submitted that the Secretary had a "whiff or hint of industrial action…over a week [ago], they had signals two weeks ago and definite confirmation that subbranches had voted to take industrial action a week ago" and that the delay by the Secretary in only notifying the Commission on the afternoon of 11 February 2022 militated against the grant of dispute orders. Her argument was two-fold. 1. The first was that the significant delay in notifying the Commission made it impossible or very difficult for the Commission to exercise its statutory functions. She said: [T]hey [the Secretary] didn't come here last week, when perhaps some of these issues could have been properly ventilated. They left it to the last minute and came to the Commission hoping that it's some sort of order dispensing machine, where they come up and put in the PIN number and out come orders and there we go, we can walk away. Well, resolving a dispute involves more than just issuing orders and the Commission is well aware of that and the Commission is put in a very difficult position when parties don't give it enough time to exercise its statutory functions. 1. The second was that the delay in seeking orders and the making of orders on the day before the threatened industrial action would bring about inconvenience for employees and members of the Association. It was submitted that there some members of the Association had made plans for childcare to attend rallies.
Secondly, Ms Davis submitted that the potential loss, damage and economic impact of the threatened industrial action would not be as significant as that submitted by the Secretary. The Association pointed out that: 1. Some planned services scheduled for 15 February 2022 had already been cancelled by the Ministry of Health in anticipation of the strike. The Ministry has also had significant planning for staff shortages for the sake of the pandemic; 2. Members of the Association had been engaging with nurse unit managers for some time to reduce the impact on patient care as a result of the planned strike; 3. There has been ongoing conversations across the State where striking nurses have stayed back at the request of their nurse unit manager to ensure that life preserving staff would be maintained; and 4. No staffing arrangement will be in place that falls below life preserving short term escalation plans.
I am satisfied that these two arguments above were "clearly articulated" before the Commissioner. Perhaps apart from some evidence or specificity about the number of members who had made childcare plans or the extent of inconvenience, Ms Davis' arguments in the above respects were articulated in a clear way that the Commissioner would have been put on notice as a significant argument against the making of dispute orders.
These two arguments were also "substantial" in the sense that they were clearly material to the question before the Commissioner. As explained earlier in this judgment, these arguments are directly relevant to the exercise of the Commission's discretion. The first argument relating to the delay in the Secretary's notification went to the balancing exercise between whether to make or not make dispute orders. The second argument regarding the extent of potential loss, damage and economic impact of the threatened industrial action went to a mandatory relevant consideration in s 146(2) of the Act. This was in the context of significant industrial issues raised by the Association, namely, the pay for nurses and midwives when there had been higher levels of patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic and the necessary skill mix and staffing levels in hospitals.
In failing to say a word about these two clearly articulated, substantial arguments, it may be inferred that the Commissioner failed to apply himself to properly exercise the discretion to make dispute orders. What the Commissioner did amounted to a jurisdictional error. The Commissioner's orders are to be regarded as a purported and not real exercise of the statutory function in ss 136(1)(c) and 137(1)(a) of the Act. The statutory function was not lawfully exercised because there was no consideration or response to the Association's clearly articulated, substantial arguments.
There was a practical injustice because, if the Commissioner had accepted the arguments of the Association in the circumstances of the First Dispute, there was a realistic possibility that the Commissioner may have refused to make dispute orders, made dispute orders in different terms or exercised another power available to him (such as making a recommendation or direction to the parties under s 136(1)(a) of the Act).
For these reasons, the Commissioner constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction. The February Orders were vitiated by jurisdictional error and are, in law, no decision at all. In these circumstances, I find that no legally valid dispute order was contravened and, in these circumstances, the Court should take no action. Accordingly, the Amended Summons, insofar that it relates to the alleged breaches of the purported February Orders, should be dismissed under s 139(3)(a) of the Act.
I make two further observations. First, I note, for completeness, that there were two other arguments that were broadly advanced by Ms Beard.
One argument was that some of the industrial claims advanced by the Association and its members could not be obtained as a result of s 146C of the Act and the wages policy in the Regulation. Ms Davis outlined that the Association is "seeking minimum staffing levels in areas that are currently not covered by the NHPPD schema, we're seeking that patient specials, that is to say patients that require dedicated attention, one-to-one care or one-to-two care from a nurse, don't come out of the existing minimum numbers for the ward but come above it".
This argument lacked specificity. It did not explain how the Association's claim would exceed wages cap on employee-related costs. It merely asserted that it did. Nor did Ms Davis explain whether there were any employee-related cost savings that have been achieved that could fully offset the increased employee-related costs beyond the policy in cl 6 of the Regulation. I am not satisfied that this argument was "clearly articulated" in the relevant sense.
Furthermore, as I noted above, the provisions in cls 6 and 6A of the Regulation are not insurmountable. I consider it unlikely in the industrial context that a submission of this kind is persuasive in favour of a union unless the union has endeavoured to create an environment that the cap is overcome by proposed employee-related cost savings but the employer has unreasonably refused to agree to the necessary offsets: see generally Re Correctional Officers.
Another argument that Ms Davis submitted was that the Secretary had breached cl 53 of the Public Health System Nurses' and Midwives' (State) Award 2021 (NSW) ("the Award") and that the Secretary did not come with "clean hands". In cross-examination, Ms Allen appears to accept that there were instances where nurse and patient ratios had not been maintained in accordance with cl 53 of the Award. The Association also tendered a document to the Commission with a table that showed multiple alleged breaches of cl 53 of the Award.
As I explained above, the conduct of the parties is a relevant consideration. The fact that the party seeking dispute orders had allegedly contravened a provision of an award can be considered. Although I am satisfied that the submission by Ms Davis was clearly articulated, it was not articulated in a substantial way. A union alleging a breach of an award can (and should) notify the Commission under s 130 of the Act and have the matter dealt with accordingly: FBEU v FRNSW [2012]. Allegations of breaches of awards may also be dealt with by seeking a civil penalty under s 357 of the Act.
There may be circumstances where an alleged breach of an award can be sufficiently substantial in the sense that it could alter the ultimate outcome. This would likely be the case where the immediacy of the breach meant that the mechanisms under ss 130 or 357 of the Act could not adequately and effectively remedy the breach with the requisite expedition. An example would be where the breach creates a highly dangerous risk to workplace health and safety. No such arguments were put by Ms Davis.
In the instant case, it appears from the evidence that this was the first occasion that the Association had raised this alleged breach with the Commission. The alleged breach, which Ms Davis said was ongoing, did not have a close connection with the industrial dispute notified by the Secretary, which focused on the imminent strike. Before the First Dispute, the Association had not taken any steps under ss 130 or 357 of the Act to deal with the alleged breach in the Commission, Local Court or this Court. Overall, it is quite inconceivable that the submissions relating to an alleged breach of cl 53 of the Award could result in the Commissioner reaching a different decision.
Also, there is no requirement that a party seeking dispute orders must come with "clean hands". The equitable principle that "he who comes to equity must come with clean hands" is not a defence to applications for dispute orders. I am not satisfied that either the allegations of breaches of cl 53 of the Award or the unclean hands of the Secretary could have affected or been material to the decision to make dispute orders in the circumstances of the proceedings before Commissioner Murphy.
Secondly, at the hearing, the defendant did not seek any orders or declaration if the Court found that the February Orders are not legally valid. As discussed above, s 179 of the Act does not prevent this Court making a declaration that a purported decision of the Commission is invalid.
It is a requirement for the making of a declaration that it will have foreseeable or practical consequences for the parties: Plaintiff M76/2013 v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship (2013) 251 CLR 322; [2013] HCA 53 at 391 [233] (Kiefel and Keane JJ, as Kiefel CJ then was); Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564; [1992] HCA 10 at 582 (Mason CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ). I express no concluded view but it does appear that a declaration can have practical consequences for the parties in future industrial matters and for the purpose of making clear the validity and effect of the February Orders. Of course, the making of a declaration is discretionary: Forster v Jododex (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 435 (Gibbs J, as his Honour then was).
I am hesitant to make a declaration that the February Orders are invalid in this judgment for two reasons. The first is that the defendant did not bring judicial review proceedings and it should not be assumed that ordinary remedies in judicial review proceedings would follow axiomatically in industrial proceedings where a collateral attack is brought. The second is that a declaration was not expressly sought, and no argument was heard on it. However, it is appropriate to grant liberty for seven days from the publication of this judgment to allow the parties to seek a declaration that the February Orders are invalid for the reasons given in this judgment.

[50]

The March Orders are Not Infected with Jurisdictional Error

The defendant's written submissions stated that the "central and critical elements" of the Association's case as to why dispute orders should not be made were as follows: (i) the staffing provisions of the Award were not being complied with by the Secretary; (ii) a log of claims had been served by the defendant and it had sought to bargain in a structured manner with the Secretary. By precluding its members from taking industrial[] action[,] the Commission was taking away its members' bargaining power; (iii) no clear adverse consequences had, in fact, flowed from the 15 February 2022 strike, including in terms of clinical outcomes for patients.
In relation to argument (i), the Association tendered further evidence of nursing hours per patient from June 2021 to December 2021. Ms Allen also conceded in cross-examination that average weekly nursing hours per patient were less than the require minimum in cl 53 of the Award. Ms Beard submitted that cl 53 of the Award was being breached.
In relation to argument (ii), Ms Beard stated: The association has served its log of claims and we want to commence that bargaining in a more structured manner. In ordering our members not to proceed with the [industrial] action, the Commission is effectively taking away that bargaining power from our members …
In relation to argument (iii), Ms Beard stated: [W]hilst the Commission might consider it in the public interest, and I know that that is your primary concern, Commissioner, as to whether or not to make dispute orders and it may take the view that there's a risk to the community in respect of the action that we take, or that our members take, should I say, it's now a view that was supported by the New South Wales health statement from [the] 15 [February] action and I note that in Ms Allen's affidavit I think it's at para 7 she indicates that she's not personally aware of the strike resulting in any particular adverse clinical outcomes for patients in the time available since becoming aware of further industrial action. So there is no clear adverse actions that arose that she is aware of in her statement as a result of that action. The ministry has also indicated in that - sorry, New South Wales Health, not the ministry, has also indicated in that statement that life-preserving staffing was maintained and there was minimal impact. We always encourage - the association will always encourage members to work with management to ensure that life-preserving staffing is maintained and that did occur in accordance with the new South Wales Health statement in respect of the first strike.
As noted above, I do not accept the prosecutor's submission that the Commissioner had responded to the defendant's case in the dialogue between the Commissioner and Ms Beard. In the circumstances, the Commissioner's questioning amounted to consideration or a response.
The three arguments of the Association must be understood in their broader context. The log of claims was already before the Commission. Compulsory conferences and conciliation had been listed in IRC file number 2022/00041072 and was ongoing in relation to the claims brought by the Association.
As discussed above, the issues raised by the alleged breaches of cl 53 of the Award in argument (i) were not "substantial" in the relevant sense. It is noteworthy that the Commission was seized of the alleged breach and the defendant could use those processes to seek recommendations, directions, orders and other mechanisms to achieve compliance with the relevant provisions of the Award.
In relation to argument (ii), it must be remembered that the Parliament envisaged that industrial disputes are to be resolved by conciliation and, if necessary, by arbitration. It is plainly inconsistent with the objects and provisions of the Act if, whilst the Commission is seeking to resolve an industrial dispute, the parties to "go their own way" with industrial action. It is contrary to the purpose of Ch 3 of the Act, which is to facilitate the fair and just resolution of industrial disputes with the assistance of the Commission and without the need to resort to industrial action. Accepting argument (ii) when the Commission is seized of the dispute would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
In circumstances when the Commission is actively seized in conciliating or arbitrating an industrial dispute, it has not been accepted in the NSW industrial relations system that a party should be permitted to engage in industrial action so as to increase their bargaining power. Higgins J wrote extra-curially that a system of conciliation and arbitration was to be a "new province for law and order" where legally regulated processes were "to secure the reign of justice as against violence, of right as against might": HB Higgins, A New Province for Law and Order (Constable, 1922) at page 60. Its whole design was to prevent, at least to a considerable extent, the need for industrial action and the wielding of economic force to settle disputes. Instead, the Act provides arbitration as an alternative method for disputants - one that has as a level-playing field for both employers and employees to be heard and for disputes to be settled by reason: see Stemp v Australian Glass Manufacturers Co Ltd (1917) 23 CLR 226 at 243 (Higgins J) ("Stemp v AGM").
In Director-General of the New South Wales Department of Education and Communities v New South Wales Teachers Federation [2012] NSWIRComm 93 ("Education Director-General v NSWTF [2012] NSWIRComm 93"), the President, Boland J, after much learning and experience, made the following profound observation at [27]: The objective [of the Act] is make available an avenue for the "prompt and fair" resolution of disputes by conciliation and arbitration without the need to resort to the "rude and barbarous process of strike and lock-out." The system has worked for the last 110 years as well as, if not better than, any other system devised in the Australian context.
Ms Beard's argument, however, may be more readily accepted in the Federal industrial relations system particularly where protected industrial action is a permitted feature in negotiating enterprise agreements. But there is no place in importing into the NSW industrial system concepts that resonate with or emanate from the Fair Work Act 2009 (NSW) ("Fair Work Act") in a collective bargaining sense. The divergence in systems of industrial regulation and the significant different parameters between the Federal and NSW systems has been considered at length in decisions of the Commission: see, eg, State Wage Case 1999 (1999) 88 IR 363 at 389 (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, Hungerford and Schmidt JJ, and Deputy President Harrison). In Re Pastoral Industry (State) Award, the Full Bench (Walton J, Vice-President, Schmidt J, Deputy President Grayson and Commissioner Connor) surveyed the provisions of the NSW Act and the WR Act and concluded that "the differences which now exist between the two legislative schemes, so far as the respective award making powers of the two tribunals are concerned and how they are exercised in practice, are stark" (at 177 [28]) and that that the Commission's "award making powers under the Act are, at this point in time, considerably broader than those of the AIRC pursuant to the WR Act and are substantially directed to considerably different purposes" (at 178 [29]).
Therefore, I am of the view that argument (ii) does not meet the threshold for substantiality or materiality.
Argument (iii) relied upon a media release issued by the Ministry of Health. Although it can be inferred that the Association was submitting that the threatened strike on 31 March 2022 would also not have clear adverse consequences, this argument was flimsy and only made in passing. Unlike Ms Davis in the First Dispute, Ms Beard did not explain what steps the Association had taken to coordinate with nurse managers or minimise the impact on patient care. The argument was not sufficient to rise to the level of being "clearly articulated" to put the Commissioner on notice.
I am not satisfied that the arguments of the Association in the Second Dispute were "substantial" in the relevant sense. At the time of the Second Dispute, the Commissioner was in the midst of dealing with the claims of the Association and issues raised from the First Dispute, including the log of claims from the Association, and would have been aware or likely formed the view that the Association had deliberately and flagrantly contravened the February Orders, on the face of them, in the previous month (although I have now found that those orders were vitiated by jurisdictional error).
In those circumstances, it is very difficult to see how there was a real possibility that the Commission could, even if the three arguments advanced by the Association were clearly articulated and considered as a whole, have reached a different outcome. In the circumstances, the Commission would in all likelihood have made dispute orders against the threatened industrial action even if the arguments of the Association were fully considered.
I emphasise that no part of the assessment above involves the merits of the arguments although they clearly derive from an understanding of how the Commission would ordinarily operate in the circumstances that the Commissioner was in. It is not the role of this Court to decide what the "correct and proper" decision of the Commissioner should have been. The focus is always on what the Commission could, not should, have reached.
It can be observed, with no disrespect to Ms Beard, that the arguments she made were articulated and developed rather faintly. This no doubt flowed from the context of her submissions which is quite removed from the circumstances of this judgment. At the time of the Second Dispute, there was no suggestion that the February Orders were invalid or would be subject to appeal, judicial review or collateral attack. Indeed, immediately before Ms Beard addressed the Commission, Ms McDonald (as the Commissioner then was) had made submissions in very strong terms that the Association had been "essentially urging and promoting the idea of breaching the [February] orders". Ms McDonald forcefully submitted that, "[i]t's not a great position for the [A]ssociation to be putting and it certainly would make the Commission all the more ready to make the orders that my client [the Secretary] comes today to seek". Against this precarious background, it is perhaps unsurprising then that Ms Beard made circumspect submissions.
The defendant has not made out that the Commissioner failed to respond to a clearly articulated, substantial argument with respect to the Second Dispute. As explained above, although the Commissioner made an error of law in failing to give reasons, this did not amount to jurisdictional error. I do not accept that any of the bases that the defendant has submitted show that the March Orders were vitiated with jurisdictional error. The collateral attack on the March Orders must fail.
I make one further observation. In their submissions, the defendant criticised the conduct of the Commissioner in the following terms: At the conclusion of the defendant's representative's submissions, the Commissioner did not ask to hear from the Secretary's representative in reply. Instead, he delved immediately into fashioning dispute orders, using the orders sought by the Secretary as a template and proceeded to make dispute orders.
Although it may be irregular in some cases for the Secretary's representative is not afforded an opportunity to reply, I see no error in this approach by the Commissioner in that respect. The Commissioner may dispense with hearing from the Secretary's representative in reply if they are satisfied, after genuine and proper consideration of the arguments by the parties, that the Secretary should succeed in their application.
Further, the use of draft or proposed orders submitted by the Secretary "as a template" should not attract criticism. It is common in courts and tribunals for the moving party to state the orders or relief that they seek. If the moving party succeeds in the merits of their application, it is then for the Commissioner to decide whether the relief should be granted in the terms proposed or on different terms. Using the Secretary's draft or proposed orders did not amount to error.

[51]

Overview

I now turn to consider whether the pleaded contraventions of the March Orders are made out. In light of the foregoing conclusion that the February Orders were vitiated with jurisdictional error, it is strictly unnecessary to consider the pleaded contraventions of those purported orders. However, for the benefit of the parties and given that I heard full argument on the issue, I will briefly consider the pleaded contraventions of the February Orders.
The Amended Summons filed by the prosecutor pleaded ten contraventions of the February and March Orders. In summary: 1. Pleaded contravention A alleged that the defendant "[f]ailed to cease organising and refrain from taking industrial action and continued to induce, etc the industrial action" in contravention of orders A1 and A2 of the February Orders on 14 and 15 February 2022. 2. Pleaded contravention B alleged that the defendant "[f]ailed to refrain from taking industrial action, including the strike on 15 February 2022" in contravention of order A1 of the February Orders; 3. Pleaded contraventions C to I alleged that the defendant "[f]ailed to cease organising and refrain from taking industrial action and continued to induce, etc the industrial action" in contravention of orders A1 and A2 of the March Orders on 25 to 31 March 2022, respectively; and 4. Pleaded contravention J alleged that the defendant "[f]ailed to refrain from taking industrial action, including the strike on 31 March 2022" in contravention of order A1 of the March Orders.
On the assumption that the dispute orders were legally valid, the defendant's submissions can be summarised as follows: 1. The defendant accepted that pleaded contravention A is established and that the defendant engaged in organising industrial action on 14 and 15 February 2022 in contravention of the February Orders; 2. It also accepted that the particulars relied on for pleaded contraventions H and I are established and the March Orders were contravened on 30 and 31 March 2022 only; 3. Pleaded contraventions C to F should be dismissed because the each of the particulars in pleaded contraventions C to F ("the contested particulars") do not establish a breach of the March Orders ; and 4. Pleaded contraventions B and J should be dismissed because an industrial organisation is not legally capable of contravening an order on the basis that it refrain itself from taking industrial action.
At the outset, it is convenient to split the contested particulars based on the arguments raised by the defendant into the following three broad groups: 1. The first group of contested particulars are pleaded contravention C particular (b); pleaded contravention D particulars (a), (e)-(k); pleaded contravention E particulars (a)-(c); pleaded contravention F particulars (a)-(b), (e)-(j); and, pleaded contravention G particulars (a)-(b). The first group related to communications (either by emails or letters) sent by officers or members of the defendant to managers or representatives of the prosecutor to advise that a Branch of the defendant had met and voted to take strike action; 2. The second group of contested particulars are pleaded contravention C particular (a) and pleaded contravention F particular (d), which refer to an email and text message purportedly sent by Mr Holmes or the Association, respectively. The defendant submitted that the recipient of those communications is not in evidence; and 3. The third group are the remaining two contested particulars, which are pleaded contravention D particular (c) and pleaded contravention F particular (c).

[53]

Pleaded Contraventions C to F

On the first group of contested particulars, the prosecutor submitted that "the sending of the relevant notice was done to aid, encourage, to organise, et cetera the relevant strike". Counsel for the prosecutor made clear that she relied on the issuance of the notices as a contravention of the orders on different days by different Branches and different individuals.
The prosecutor submitted that "abet" means "assistance of some description" and "authorise" is "to give approval". Counsel for the prosecutor submitted as follows: Now, we say that the issuing of these notices does fall within that characterisation, because issuing of notices is in furtherance of the vote having taken place and industrial action that is to take place. That is in the industrial context the way that these things happen. There is a meeting held, a vote is taken, and then the industrial action is notified to the employer. And as I say, the defendant relies on the notification to minimise the effect that the industrial action had on my client, and on patients, and the like. And so it's a step taken in the process of taking the industrial action. The vote having taken place, there is notification. And then the evidence discloses that there is at times a discussion between the association and various members at the hospitals and staff of my client, as to minimising the impact to ensuring that there is sufficient staffing to provide life preserving care and the like. And so the notices play an important part, and it is a step along the way. And we certainly say it's a step that abets and certainly say that it's a step that authorises the taking of the industrial action by the association. So really clear that what emphasis we place on the notices themselves.
There appears to be some confusion as to whether the prosecutor sought to rely on these notices to establish that the meetings and votes were conducted in breach of the orders, as distinct from the mere issuance of the notices to the prosecutor. Ms Bulut stated on the second hearing day: One of the matters put against me on that is to say that that notice relates to a vote, and we don't have any evidence as to when that vote took place. That is, the vote may have taken place prior to the orders being made by the Commissioner. That may well be so. We don't rely on the conduct of the vote. We rely on the conduct of the issuing of the notice as being a contravention of the orders made by Commissioner Murphy. We say it's beside the point when members voted to take industrial action.
On the third hearing day, the counsel for the prosecutor in reply appeared to contradict her earlier submissions as to whether the prosecutor used this material to prove that meetings and votes were held in contravention of the March Orders. Ms Bulut said: And I wish to just clarify our position, just so it's very clear. Firstly, we do rely on the meetings tak[ing] place as well. To the extent there is no evidence as to the time and date of those meetings, we rely on the notices and the date and the time of those notices being issued. They are always date stamped, if they are letters, or there are emails sent which provide for a date and a time.
On the second and third groups of contested particulars, the prosecutor relied on the evidence in the Allen Affidavit.

[54]

Pleaded Contraventions B and J

The prosecutor submitted that the defendant can take industrial action by reason of the fact that its members took industrial action and the conduct of the defendant's members is attributable to the defendant. It was submitted that the strike itself, as distinct from the organisation of the strike, that represents a separate contravention, relying on Education Secretary v AEU [2022] at [343]-[345] (Walton J). The prosecutor's argument was developed through the note that was filed.
First, an industrial organisation can be subject to a dispute order under s 137(1)(a) of the Act to refrain from taking industrial action. The Court of Appeal recognised in PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] that the power of the Commission under s 137(1)(a) of the Act extends to making dispute orders directing an industrial organisation to refrain from directing its members to engage in industrial action or to refrain from organising industrial action.
Secondly, the defendant may be held accountable for industrial action taken by its members. In this respect, the prosecutor relied on BlueScope v AWU [2005] NSWIRComm 99 at [91] in which Boland J (as his Honour then was) observed that contravening acts of a member, officer or employee may be held to be a contravention by an industrial organisation.
It followed from these two points that: Given an industrial organisation may be the subject of a dispute order under s 137(1)(a) and, through its members, may be liable for contravening a dispute order, it follows that, a union, as a matter of law, can take industrial action insofar as that action is physically taken by the union's members - if those actions can be attributable to the union (i.e. and not a 'wildcat' strike). [Emphasis in original.]
The prosecutor submitted that this is consistent with the purpose and intention of the Act, which conceives of a union as a mechanism through which union members may be regulated. It was emphasised that the Act does not directly regulate the conduct of union members and penalties cannot be imposed on individual employees. In this respect, counsel for the prosecutor submitted: It would be incongruous, and inconsistent with the purpose of the IR Act, if a union could not, as a matter of law, take industrial action through its members, and therefore, could not, as a matter of law, breach a dispute order to refrain from taking industrial action, in circumstances where a penalty for a breach of such a dispute order can only be imposed on an industrial organisation.
In relation to both pleaded contraventions, the prosecutor relied on Facebook posts made by the defendant that amounted to a "call to action" for members to strike and attend rallies. She further submitted: My proposition is simply that the evidence shows that the actions of its members is attributable to the defendant and therefore the defendant has contravened the order by reason of the strikes that had actually occurred and the participation within those strikes of its members.

[55]

Number of Contraventions

The prosecutor submitted that pleaded contraventions A to J in the Amended Summons were separate contraventions of the February or March Orders for the purposes of setting penalties.
The prosecutor accepted that "[c]ontravening conduct which continues from day-to-day which is not conduct of a homogenous kind may be regarded as separate contraventions". However, the prosecutor submitted that there is insufficient legal and factual overlap to engage the course of conduct principle. The prosecutor submitted: a. Actions taken by the Association in contravention of the same Orders on different days, where the conduct is not conduct of a homogenous kind, ought to be treated as separate contraventions; b. Where action of a homogenous kind extends beyond a single day, a lower maximum penalty applies to subsequent days; and c. The act of taking industrial action, as opposed to organising or encouraging members to take industrial action, ought to be treated as separate contravention.
The prosecutor relied on Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2017] where the conduct of the union in maintaining a notice on its website directing its members to strike amounted to a contravention that spanned multiple days. The prosecutor submitted that conduct or action "of a homogenous kind" should be understood as referring to "the same conduct that spans a numbers of days".
It was submitted that the conduct of the defendant in the alleged breach of the March Order was distinguishable to the kind in Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2017]. Counsel for the prosecutor submitted: [T]he position advanced by me is that on each day here, we're dealing with different conduct by different individuals and different branches of the defendant, and therefore here we're dealing with different contraventions, not contraventions that span multiple days.
During the hearing, Ms Bulut submitted that the course of conduct principle is separate to determining the number of contraventions. Her submission was in the following terms: So, if once your Honour identifies a number of contraventions and your Honour has the identification of the maximum penalty to be imposed, separately, there's a question as to whether the conduct is subject to course of conduct type considerations, in which case that would reduce the penalty that your Honour imposes to ensure that the same conduct isn't being punished more than once.
In any event, counsel for the prosecutor submitted that, at common law, even if a Court concludes that a number of contraventions arise out of the one course of conduct, it is not bound to only impose one penalty. Therefore, counsel for the prosecutor submitted that this Court should impose more than one penalty in order to ensure that the wrongdoing.

[56]

Pleaded Contraventions C to F

In relation to the first group of contested particulars, the submission by the defendant appears to be two-fold. The first is that communication to an employer of an intention to engage in industrial action cannot constitute organising members to take industrial action nor can it amount to inducing, advising, authorising, supporting, encouraging, directing, aiding or abetting members to engage in industrial action. Thus, there could not be said to be a breach of the March Orders.
Secondly, although the defendant accepted that the holding of a vote "plainly would" amount to "organisation" or "inducement" of industrial action, it pointed out that some of the emails or letters do not identify when the Branch met or when the vote occurred. There is thus an "evidentiary lacuna" as to whether the meeting or vote occurred after the March Orders were made on 25 March 2022. Therefore, the prosecutor cannot establish that any breach that arises from the conduct of the meetings or votes occurred after the March Orders came into effect.
In this respect, the defendant relied on the decision of Jagot J in Fair Work Ombudsman v Maritime Union of Australia [2017] FCA 1363 ("FWO v MUA") at [80] in relation to the meaning of the verb "organising" in s 417 of the Fair Work Act. Counsel for the defendant submitted: It is accepted that in the context of dispute orders prohibiting the organisation of industrial action, that such orders can be breached even if industrial action does not result from conduct constituting 'organising': PSA Appeal at [125]. However, 'organising' still requires marshalling, rallying or coordinating of relevant employees to organise or engage in industrial action".
In relation to the second group of contested particulars, the defendant submitted that there is a lack of evidence that the relevant email and text message was sent to a member of the defendant. In these circumstances, they submit that it could not be established that the defendant breached order A2 of the March Orders.
In relation to the third group of contested particulars, the defendant submitted that pleaded contravention D particular (c) relates to radio broadcast that merely records the outcome of a vote. This does not, of itself, constitute "organisation" or "inducement" of industrial action of the kind captured by the March Orders.
Pleaded contravention F particular (c) concerns an email that says the defendant's members "have chosen to defy the orders as per the directive from the NSWMNA". The defendant submits that "[i]t is not clear what directive is being referred to or when it was issued" and "[a]bsent evidence as to what the directive referred to is and that the votes referred to occurred after the orders were made, the email does not establish a breach of the Orders".

[57]

Pleaded Contraventions B and J

Counsel for the defendant submitted that the particular contravention is premised solely on the defendant not refraining from taking industrial action and not that it organised the industrial action or otherwise induced it or aided or encouraged it. Precision and particularity is required and, absent consent or acquiescence by a defendant, the prosecutor should be held to their pleaded case.
The defendant submitted that industrial associations and organisations do not take industrial action, only employees and employers do. This is because the definition of "industrial action" in the Dictionary to the Act refers to "a strike by employees or a lock out by an employer". As a matter of statutory construction, it was submitted that "industrial action" is something that can be engaged in only by employees or employers.
The defendant relied on PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] at 789 [118]-[119] and 790-791 [124]-[129] as authority for the proposition that an industrial organisation, like the defendant, is legally incapable for taking "industrial action" as that expression is defined in the Dictionary to the Act. In particular, reliance was placed in the "dispositive analysis" of Bathurst CJ at 790 [124] that relevantly stated: [O]nce it is accepted that orders can be made against an industrial organisation which cannot itself take "industrial action" as defined under the IR Act, then the power in s 137(1)(a) must be read to extend to the Commission ordering the industrial organisation to "cease or refrain" from causing its members to take industrial action. (Other passages of his Honour's judgment was also relied on by the defendant, which I will extract and return to below.)
The defendant submitted that, whether industrial associations are, as a matter of statutory construction, capable of engaging in industrial action was an "integral component" of Bathurst CJ's reasoning. It therefore forms part of the ratio decidendi of the case and is binding on this Court. Alternatively, it was seriously considered obiter dicta of an intermediate appellate court which this Court is required to follow unless it considers it is plainly wrong. In this respect, counsel for the defendant submitted that [343]-[344] in Education Secretary v AEU [2022] are "plainly wrong" and contrary to PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] and can be departed from (citing In the matter of Ming Tian Real Property Pty Ltd (2020) 145 ACSR 329; [2020] NSWSC 212 (Gleeson J) ("Ming Tian")).
The defendant submitted that the prosecutor's reliance on BlueScope v AWU [2005] NSWIRComm 99 was misplaced because the issue in that case concerned whether the union and its officers and employees took all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the dispute orders, not whether it could take industrial action.

[58]

Number of Contraventions

In response to the prosecutor's submission that there were separate and distinct breaches because the notices notifying of industrial action came from different branches of the union, the defendant submitted that this is a "somewhat unrealistic appraisal of what was going on". When the evidence is considered as a whole, it is plain that the organising of industrial action was procured by the defendant. The Branches were not acting independently or off the bat. It was a course of conduct.
The defendant submitted that the prosecutor's approach is directly contrary to Education Secretary v AEU [2022]. The defendant submitted that the breaches occurred on consecutive days, all directed at the Secretary and were directed at the same ends in relation to organising industrial action on 15 February and 31 March 2022. In those circumstances, the conduct was akin to the circumstances in Education Secretary v AEU [2022] where contraventions were found to have occurred over a number of days.
The defendant submitted that there was, plainly, a legal and factual relationship between the contraventions alleged of the February Orders on 14-15 February 2022. There was also a legal and factual relationship between the contraventions alleged of the March Orders which are said to have occurred over 25-31 March 2022. The written submissions of the defendant were as follows: 140. There was a legal relationship because the contraventions of the respective orders as they were premised on the same orders made by the Commission. 141. There was a factual relationship of the respective orders as the contraventions alleged: (i) are temporally interlinked, occurring over consecutive days; (ii) are directed at the same employer, viz., the Secretary; (iii) are directed at the same aim, namely, taking industrial action on, relevantly, 15 February 2022 and 31 March 2022 in support of particular industrial demands.
On the assumption that their submissions with respect to pleaded contraventions B to F and J were accepted, the defendant submitted that pleaded contraventions H and I were in the same course of conduct that amounted to only one contravention. There is thus only a single breach of the February Orders (pleaded contravention A) and a single breach of the March Orders (pleaded contraventions H and I).

[59]

The First Group of Contested Particulars Establish Breaches of the March Orders

I will first consider the submission by counsel for the defendant that the notices by email or letter to inform representatives of the Secretary that members of the Association were going to take industrial action does not constitute a breach of the March Orders. As noted above, the principal basis for this is that it does not constitute "organising…industrial action" or an act that "induce[s] … members of the Association to organise and take industrial action".
In Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Huddy [2017] FCA 739, White J considered the meaning of the word "organise" in the context of s 417 of the Fair Work Act. His Honour expressed the view (at [67]) that the "organisation" of "industrial action", for the purposes of s 417 of the Fair Work Act, involves "the intentional arranging, bringing about, putting in place, procuring or coordinating the action in question" and that "organising has the connotation of positive conduct which is intended to, and does, induce or procure others to engage in conduct and/or which marshals or coordinates the activities of those who are willing to do so". White J's consideration concerning the meaning of "organise" in the context of s 417 of the Fair Work Act has been accepted in FWO v MUA at [80] (Jagot J) and in other subsequent cases: see, eg, Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (The Bay Street Case) (2018) 260 FCR 564; [2018] FCA 83 at 588 [95] (Bromberg J).
The word "organise" is "of large connotation": Pirrie v McFarlane (1925) 36 CLR 170 at 203 (Isaacs J). The term does not appear in s 137 of the Act or in the definition of "industrial action". Thus, unlike the decisions of the Federal Court concerning s 417 of the Fair Work Act where the interpretation of "organising" requires "[c]areful attention … to the statutory context in which the word appears" (BlueScope Steel Limited v Australian Workers' Union [2018] FCA 1574 at [11] (Wigney J)), the interpretation of "organising" in order A1 of the March Orders must be approached in its own unique context.
It must be remembered that the March Orders were made by a specialist industrial tribunal and directed to industrial parties in the proceedings arising from a notified industrial dispute. Therefore, the phrase "organising…industrial action" in the March Orders should be interpreted as that term is understood in industrial parlance. It follows that the definitions of "organise" or "organising" from general dictionaries are not of any great assistance in this case. Commissioner Murphy is steeped in knowledge of industrial law and he would have undoubtedly used the term "organising" in the March Orders as it is understood in the industrial context.
The term "organise" can be used in a very broad industrial sense to mean forming a union or enrolling new members into a union. This is seen in notions that workers have a "right to organise". The term "organising", in the context of unions, can encompass notions of collective action, bargaining and representation.
When the term "organising" is used as a verb in the sense of "organising…industrial action", it is sufficiently broad to include acts of initiating, preparing or coordinating, or making arrangements for, industrial action. It is not limited to the marshalling, rallying or coordinating of relevant employees. Depending on the circumstances, it can include the acts of planning and mobilisation by key union individuals to facilitate a more orderly and effective strike. Careful attention must be paid to the office or authority of the person who is doing the relevant acts. A union general secretary that encourages and enables industrial action may be said to be organising it but a detached observer doing those acts may not.
In Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Robinson (2016) 241 FCR 338; [2016] FCA 525, Charlesworth J observed at 348 [53] that the word "organise" in s 417 of the Fair Work Act may "inherently involve a number of discrete acts directed at achieving cohesiveness in a result (in this case, a single episode of industrial action)". Her Honour's observations were applied in Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 3) [2017] FCA 10 at [33] (Besanko J).
When understood in the broader context of industrial relations, the communication from Branch presidents or other senior officers of the defendant to the prosecutor is commensurate with the union's obligations to provide for sensible arrangements and order in relation to industrial action by employees of essential services, especially where the action may affect the provision of life-preserving services. The notices are demonstrably part of the defendant's role as a collective entity. Although it is part of the goodwill shown by the defendant, it is undoubtedly an ordinary aspect of the planning, preparation and coordination of a strike. The maturity of the defendant's actions and its careful adherence to its underlying policies does not detract from the fundamental proposition that it is putting in place arrangements for the taking of industrial action.
The construction that Mr Boncardo insists is an artificial and technical one that ignores the practical realities of how industrial organisations effectuate industrial action. It would be a strange occurrence that a strike would occur without some notification to the employer that it is about to begin or has begun. This is because a credible threat of a strike can often be just as potent or powerful as a strike itself. "[C]onsiderable industrial disruption can be caused by the threat of industrial action as well as from industrial action itself": PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] at 789 [121] (Bathurst CJ). Industrial parties, including large, established employers and unions like the prosecutor and defendant, would be very well aware of this. Therefore, notification to the employer of an imminent strike is a necessary and important aspect to building leverage and increasing the bargaining strength of employees. The notice is plainly an act that makes the strike more effective or makes it accord with responsible policies of an organisation when their members take industrial action. It was clearly part of organising industrial action. It was clearly within the purview of the March Orders.
It would be naïve to ignore the particular significance of sending these notices after the March Orders were made. After the March Orders were made, an employer should be able to assume that the defendant would and should comply with those orders and that the threatened industrial action would not occur. The notices that were sent after the making of the March Orders had the effect of indicating to the Secretary that industrial action is still being persisted in each of the Branches. Those notices carried with it the authority of defendant. It was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. The Secretary would have realised that the threat of a strike thus continues to loom large notwithstanding the dispute orders made by the Commission. Therefore, it is immaterial that the Branch or member meetings and votes referred to in the communications may possibly have occurred before the March Orders were issued. It is the conduct of the defendant (after the March Orders were made) in notifying the prosecutor that the defendant's members will be taking industrial action or that the strike is going ahead that amounts to "organising…industrial action". Accordingly, the submission of the defendant that the communications cannot amount to a breach of the orders must be rejected.
Hence, I am satisfied, with respect to each of the particulars in the first group of contested particulars, that the notices were sent after the defendant became aware of the March Orders and amounted to "organising…industrial action" in breach of those Orders.
However, I reject the submission by counsel for the prosecutor in reply that the notices are evidence that the Branch meetings and votes took place after the March Orders were made. In some cases, the communications expressly state the votes occurred on dates before 25 March 2022. For example, the email relied on in pleaded contravention D particular (e) communicates the result of a vote to take strike action in a meeting of members of the Long Jetty Continuing Care Branch held on 21 March 2022.
Where the communications are silent on the date and time of the Branch meetings, I am not able to infer the date and time of the votes merely from the date and time that those communications were sent. This is especially so because the evidence from Mr Holmes' email on 25 March 2022 was that, as at that time, "[a] majority of NSWMNA branches have now met and voted in favour of a 24-hour strike on 31 March".

[60]

The Second Group of Contested Particulars Establish Breaches of the March Orders

First, pleaded contravention C particular (a) relates to the email (extracted above) sent by Mr Holmes on the afternoon of 25 March 2022. Counsel for the defendant submitted that "[i]t is not apparent who the email was sent to, nor is there any evidence … that it was sent to the defendant's members nor anyone employed under the Relevant Award".
It is surprising that Mr Boncardo would submit that there is an "absence of evidence that the email was in fact sent to members of the defendant or any employee employed under the Relevant Award". On 28 March 2022, Mr Holmes stated in his letter to Ms Murray (also extracted above) that this email was sent to "all Public Health System Branch members", "all Association staff members", "all members of the Association Executive" and "all members of the Association Council".
It is obvious that particular (a) establishes that the defendant was both organising industrial action and inducing, advising, supporting and encouraging its members to take industrial action in contravention of the March Orders after those orders were made. This is so notwithstanding that the words "to its members" in [37] of Allen Affidavit was not read.
Secondly, pleaded contravention F particular (d) relates to a SMS message sent from the "NSWMNA" that reads: Hold strong, continue the fight & attend your rally as planned. Check your email for details about statewide STRIKE action on 31 MARCH: https://nswnma.info/31march.
Counsel for the defendant does not contest that it was sent by the defendant but submitted that a breach of the March Orders cannot be established because there is "no evidence that it was in fact sent to members of the defendant nor as to the date it was sent". Mr Boncardo submitted that "[i]n the absence of evidence that the text message was in fact sent to members of the defendant to whom the Orders related or who were employed under the Relevant Award, this particular cannot be established". I disagree.
The uncontested evidence of the Allen Affidavit was that the defendant caused the text message to be sent on 28 March 2022 at about 5:35pm. Although the screenshot does not necessarily prove that it was communicated to a particular person who was a member of the defendant or the extent to which it was sent, it proves that, on 28 March 2022, the defendant was promulgating a view that the "statewide STRIKE action" is to continue. The words "[h]old strong" plainly have all the indicia of a union organising a strike and urging its members to join in the industrial action. The language of "continue the fight" is classically the language of a union organising industrial action. It is quintessentially the phraseology adopted by industrial organisations in the organisation of industrial action.
Sending this message represents a positive act by the defendant to garner support so that the strike is more effective. The message was clearly part of an effort to build momentum and urge the reader to strike and attend planned rallies on 31 March 2022. The message would only make sense if it was targeted towards members of the defendant or employees of the NSW Health entities who were contemplating, or were at least aware, of the planned strike. This message would only resonate with those members and employees. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this evidence shows that the defendant was organising industrial action in contravention of the March Orders in this respect.
Therefore, I am satisfied that each of the particulars in the second group of contested particulars establish breaches of the March Orders.

[61]

The Third Group of Contested Particulars Establish Breaches of the March Orders

First, pleaded contravention D particular (c) relates to a statement by Mr Holmes on the 2GB radio station in the morning of 26 March 2022 that "[m]ore than 160 branches of the NSW Nurses and Midwives' Association that cover the public health system have voted to take industrial action on Thursday the 31st. This follows our previous action in February".
When heard in the context in which the news radio segment had introduced Mr Holmes, his statement was clearly an indication that the planned industrial action would be going ahead in defiance of the March Orders. This is an act of informing the public of upcoming industrial action and garnering wider support, which is an inherent aspect of making a strike more effective. Mr Holmes' act of appearing on a radio station that broadcasts in Sydney and stating that there would be industrial action that follows a previous strike was an aspect of organising industrial action. I am satisfied that pleaded contravention D particular (c) establishes a contravention of the March Orders.
Secondly, pleaded contravention F particular (c) refers to the email from Ms Guinea (extracted above). This email is evidence of the fact that an organiser of the defendant understood or believed that there was a directive from the defendant to defy the orders of the Commission. In the absence of any countervailing evidence, it should be presumed that an email sent by an organiser (from their work email ending @nswmna.asn.au and included two logos of the Association in their signature) to an official of the prosecutor is a communication made on behalf of the defendant. There is no suggestion that Ms Guinea's communication was untruthful or misleading, or that she concocted the existence of the directive.
Although the terms and details of the directive is unclear, it can be inferred from the surrounding passages "defy the orders" and "the strike will go ahead" that the directive related to the strike action on 31 March 2022 and that the defendant would be proceeding with the strike in defiance of the March Orders. Although it is unclear whether the directive was issued by a person, governing council or some other body, it can be readily inferred that it was made by some person or body that could speak for the defendant such that it was "from the" Association. The presumption of regularity is applicable in this case: see generally Marroun v State Transit Authority [2016] NSWSC 1830 at [134(5)] (Walton J).
I am satisfied that pleaded contravention F particular (c) establishes that the defendant was organising industrial action in contravention of the March Orders. However, I have taken into consideration at the stage of determining the appropriate penalty that Ms Guinea was replying to an email sent from the Director of Workforce of the Northern NSW LHD, Mr Richard Buss, who asked whether the proposed strike action would go ahead. Ms Guinea's prompt response within a few hours was aimed at answering and providing clarity to Mr Buss' inquiry. As I will discuss later, this demonstrates the defendant's attitude of seeking to minimise disruption to the provision of important health services by giving notice to the prosecutor so that there is time to prepare for the industrial action.
Overall, I am satisfied that each of the particulars in the third group of contested particulars establish breaches of the March Orders.

[63]

The Deficient Particulars

As I explained above, the prosecutor has the responsibility to plead her case in the Summons. I agree with the defendant that this is because the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) require that the commencement summons "must state…the details and nature of the contravention that is alleged to have occurred": Sch J Pt 1 cl 1(2)(d) under the heading "Industrial Relations Act 1996". Furthermore, cl 1(4) requires that "[t]he details and nature of the alleged contravention must be verified by a supporting affidavit made by the prosecutor".
One of the main purposes of pleadings is to define the issues in dispute with sufficient clarity to enable the defendant to understand the case they have to meet and to provide them with an adequate opportunity to prepare to meet that case: see Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 at 664 (Murphy, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ, as Brennan CJ then was).
In Banque Commerciale SA (in liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279, Mason CJ and Gaudron J stated at 286-287: The function of pleadings is to state with sufficient clarity the case that must be met: Gould and Birbeck and Bacon v Mount Oxide Mines Ltd (In Liquidation) [(1916) 22 CLR 490], per Isaacs and Rich JJ at 517. In this way, pleadings serve to ensure the basic requirement of procedural fairness that a party should have the opportunity of meeting the case against him or her and, incidentally, to define the issues for decision. The rule that, in general, relief is confined to that available on the pleadings secures a party's right to this basic requirement of procedural fairness. Accordingly, the circumstances in which a case may be decided on a basis different from that disclosed by the pleadings are limited to those in which the parties have deliberately chosen some different basis for the determination of their respective rights and liabilities. See, e.g., Browne v Dunn [(1893) 6 R 76]; Mount Oxide Mines [(1916) 22 CLR 490 at 517-518].
In ABCC v Hall, Tracey, Reeves and Bromwich JJ stated 369 [50]: Faced with those serious consequences, the respondents were entitled to be told clearly and precisely in the Commissioner's ASOC what case it was they had to meet and, unless they deliberately chose to allow the case to be conducted on a different basis, to direct their evidence and arguments to that case and that case alone. Plainly, this latter exception did not permit the Commissioner to make a significant addition to, or departure from, the pleaded case, in counsel's opening or closing submissions and then seek to justify that course by pointing to the respondents' failure to object as evidence of their acquiescence in that course. If that were the test, this departure from the basic requirements of procedural fairness would not occur by the deliberate choice of the party entitled to fair notice but rather at the self-serving behest of his or her opponent. If such an approach were permitted, the requirement to give fair notice would be made redundant, trial by ambush would become a legitimate tactic, and the issues in dispute at trial would become a movable feast. As well, the ability of a trial judge to manage the trial to ensure it fairly addressed the issues in dispute would be significantly eroded, if not entirely destroyed. So, too, would be the capacity of the trial judge to identify the issues he or she needed to decide.
Those observations are applicable to proceedings under s 139 of the Act where civil penalties are sought to be imposed against the defendant. In setting out the alleged contraventions and particulars in the Amended Summons, precision and particularity is required. Absent consent or acquiescence by a defendant, a prosecutor should be held to their pleaded case. The prosecutor is required to identify the essential factual ingredients said to constitute the contravention of the dispute orders: John L Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) (1987) 163 CLR 508 at 519-520 (Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ). The relevant principles were stated in Taylor v Environment Protection Authority (2000) 50 NSWLR 48 at 56 [20]-[22], 57 [26] (Sperling J, with whom Meagher JA and James J agreed).
The specific conduct that particular (a) alleges is that the defendant, on or around 25 March 2022 to 31 March 2022, "created multiple events on its Facebook page which set out the details of the industrial action that would be taking place on 31 March 2022, including where and when to meet". The Amended Summons lists Facebook event names that say "Nurses and Midwives STRIKE:" followed by a location in NSW.
Particular (b) states that "[a] strike and multiple rallies occurred across the State of New South Wales, which was organised by the Defendant" (my emphasis in italics). Particular (c) states that Mr Holmes attended a rally and said "so we have to change the Minister's mind or change the Minister". The remaining particulars (f)-(h) allege that the defendant "caused a post to be published on its Facebook page" and then quotes the text of the posts made on 31 March and 1 April 2022.
The particulars in the Amended Summons do not correspond with the case put by counsel for the prosecutor in her oral submissions or the pleaded contravention itself. At no point in the particulars does it specify that members of the Association (whose conduct counsel for the prosecutor submitted is attributable to the defendant) engaged in the strike or some other form of industrial action. The highest that the prosecutor put in the particulars is that "a strike…occurred" and that the strike was "organised by the Defendant".
The particulars did not identify who was striking or taking industrial action. Although the text of the Facebook posts in particulars (f)-(h) refer to "nurses and midwives", this is deficient because it does not identify with specificity that they were members of the defendant or their connection to the defendant or the extent of the defendant's control over them (whether by a direction, recommendation or otherwise). It is also deficient because the prosecutor only particularises that the defendant caused the posts to be published on Facebook, not the truth of them.
The creation of events on Facebook has the effect of, first, publishing event information access to all Facebook users and, secondly, providing updates and notifications to Facebook users who are invited or who click "Going" or "Maybe". I am of the view that this is conduct that clearly would amount to organising the strike.
However, organising industrial action is quite different to taking it. Action may be "taken" in furtherance of action which others may have "organised". The term "take" is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as including (perhaps unhelpfully): The action or process, or an act, of taking …
The person who is "taking" the industrial action need not be the person who was "organising" it. It is obvious that an employee can strike without having done any of the preparatory acts that amount to organising the strike. A person "takes" industrial action when they do acts or make omissions that fall within the meaning of "industrial action" in the Dictionary of the Act. The term "industrial action" does not extend to a direction to strike or the organisation of a strike: PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] at 788 [116] (Bathurt CJ with whom Gleeson and Simpson JJA agreed). "Industrial action" does not include the organisation of such action, or the circumstance where such action is merely threatened, impending or probable: see Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd (2021) 310 IR 1; [2021] FWCFB 4808 at 12 [37] (Hatcher and Catanzariti VPP, with whom Colman DP agreed).
Furthermore, the written submissions of the prosecutor at [45] states that pleaded contravention J occurred over 7 days. That length is not stated in the pleading in the Amended Summons. The particulars state that the actual strike was on 31 March 2022. It can only be assumed that the prosecutor relies on the creation of Facebook events between 25 and 31 March 2022 to establish that the length of the contravention was 7 days. In my view, that is not open because the making of Facebook events that promote a strike cannot amount to taking industrial action.
The defendant was correct to draw attention to the fact that the pleaded case was that the defendant took industrial action. It must be emphasised that the pleaded contravention was not that the defendant organised the industrial action or that it otherwise induced, aided or encouraged it. It is the prosecutor's pleaded case that created the discussion regarding legal issue as to whether a union can take industrial action.
I am of the view that the particulars under pleaded contravention J could establish that the defendant breached the March Orders against organising industrial action. But none of the particulars set out by the prosecutor can amount to the defendant failing to refrain from taking industrial action. The particulars are not on all fours with how the prosecutor argued her case in the hearing or in the further note. In contrast to the submissions of the prosecutor at the hearing, the particulars do not state that members of the defendant engaged in a strike and that their actions are attributable to the defendant. Of course, the parties may expand on particulars orally to overcome a pleading issue but, here, there is a fundamental disconnect between what is particularised and the pleaded contravention itself and the oral submissions did not seek to amend the pleadings and particulars.
Without the consent of the defendant, the prosecutor is not permitted to change or add to her particulars in oral submissions at the hearing. In my view, the particulars listed in [16] of the Amended Summons are not capable of establishing pleaded contravention J. Thus, pleaded contravention J must be dismissed under s 139(3)(a) of the Act.

[64]

Whether a Union can "Take" Industrial Action and be in breach of an Order to "Refrain from Taking Industrial Action"

It is, therefore, strictly unnecessary to resolve the heavily contested issue of whether a union, like the defendant, can "take" industrial action and be in breach of a dispute order that they "refrain from taking industrial action". The research notes from the parties did not delve in any great detail to the complex issues raised by this question or any historical industrial authorities. The following should be taken as a preliminary, but not concluded, view on this important issue.
I begin by considering what a trade union is and its role in the industrial relations system of this State. It must be remembered that trade unions are organisations whose membership is derived from employees who have grouped together and may agree to take collective action. In FEFAA v Broken Hill, Barton J stated at 418: It must have been present to the mind of Parliament, as a matter of common knowledge, that a trade union did then, as it does now, often consist of a number of persons grouped together in respect of their pursuit of some one vocation, such as that of carpenters, that of engine-drivers, that of shop assistants or that of carters, while, on the other hand, the employés in a particular concern often did, as they do now, band themselves together, in a union or otherwise, in respect of that concern as an entire and collective undertaking, such as a dockyard, a foundry, a flour-mill, a boot-factory or a colliery.
O'Connor J stated at 437-438 that: The reports of the various State Arbitration Courts will show, indeed it is common knowledge, that in practically all State industrial disputes the employés were combined in trades unions or other forms of organization allowed by the law. Associations of workmen combined as trades unions have long been established in Australia, and for many years their existence and operation have been recognized and legalized in all the States by Statutes. Under these Statutes, of which the New South Wales Trades Union Act 1881 and the Victorian Trade Unions Act 1890 are examples, the system of association of workmen then existing is adopted and recognized. Trade unions were then, as they still are, associations of workmen following the same vocation, associated on the ground of common industrial interests.
Unions are bodies whose primary purpose is to seek to protect and advance the interests of their members as employees: Williams v Hursey (1959) 103 CLR 30 at 68 (Fullagar J). His Honour in that case captured (at 57) the role of trade unions in the industrial context: When the [union's] rules use, in stating 'objects', such general expressions as 'the interests of members' and 'the improvement of conditions of members' they must, of course, be read as referring to the interests of members as waterside workers and to the improvement of conditions under which they work (as to wages, hours, privileges, amenities etc.).
Although an industrial organisation, like the Association, is a corporation brought into existence by the process of registration and it ceases to exist if and when it is deregistered (in a corporate sense), it must be remembered, at a more fundamental level, that trade unions strictly need not be registered. A union is and remains, at its very core, a voluntarily formed, organised group of workers whose bundle of relationships may exist outside of or behind its corporate status: see generally Federated Ironmakers Association v Commonwealth (1951) 84 CLR 265 at 283 (Dixon, McTiernan, Williams, Webb, Fullagar and Kitto J, as Dixon CJ then was); Wheatley v Federated Ironworkers Association (1959) 60 SR (NSW) 161 at 180; (1959) 76 WN (NSW) 727 at 742 (Walsh J). It is in this respect that Isaacs J explained in Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board v Federated Seamen's Union of A/asia (1925) 35 CLR 462 at 475 that: It must always be remembered that an 'organization' such as the respondent organization is the creation of the Act and simply as [sic] incidental to its great purposes. It is permitted to come into existence for the very purpose, not of making the policy of the statute under the Constitution more difficult of attainment, but of assisting to carry that policy into effect.
In Moore v Doyle (1969) 15 FLR 59, the Full Court of the Commonwealth Industrial Court summarised the relevant authorities and held that a New South Wales registered trade and industrial union is a separate legal entity with a legal personality of its own distinct from its members at any particular time. This remains the case today. Spicer CJ, Smithers and Kerr JJ stated at 116: There is strong authority in the New South Wales Supreme Court (Egan's case (1917) 17 S.R. (N.S.W.) 243 and Wheatley v. Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia [1960] S.R. (N.S.W.) 161) for the view that a registered trade union is a legal entity separate from its members. This is supported by Heggie's case (1906) 3 CLR 686 in the High Court and by statements in Hursey's case (1959) 103 CLR 30. It is also strongly supported by a persistent line of authority in the New South Wales Industrial Commission, for example-- Brailey v. Sydney Branch of Waterside Workers' Federation [1935] A.R. (N.S.W.) 148; Lasbies v. Mackay [1945] A.R. (N.S.W.) 562; McQuillan v. Bodkin [1960] A.R. (N.S.W.) 373, at p. 392; In re J. V. Benson and Electrical Trades Union [1962] A.R. (N.S.W) 516; In re Electrical Trades Union of Australia, N.S.W. Branch [1963] A.R. (N.S.W) 796.
Two matters follow from this analysis. The first is to recognise the unique role and benefits that flow from corporate personality being superimposed on a union in the system of industrial relations in this State. The second is that an incorporated union can act through their officers and members.
Turning to the first matter. Upon registration of a union as an industrial organisation of employees, it becomes a body corporate, "has perpetual succession", "has power to purchase, take on lease, hold, sell, lease, mortgage, exchange and otherwise own, possess and deal with any real or personal property" and "may sue or be sued in its registered name": s 222 of the Act.
The purpose of incorporating a union and giving it a separate legal identity is to equip the union to be an efficient performer in this State's industrial relations system of conciliation and arbitration. Professor Edward I Sykes explained that this is also desirable in bringing about other incidental benefits ('The Hursey Case: Part 1; The Trade Union Aspect' (1960) 33 Australian Law Journal at page 432): Such [corporate] capacity would not cover merely activities in the direct process of handling disputes or appearing before the arbitration tribunals. For the purpose of equipping itself as an efficient performer in the arbitral process, a union must live. It may be desirable that it have a hall, a car, or order milk for the provision of morning tea for its officials; it may be desirable that it conduct a newspaper.
The participation by unions is critical to a system of conciliation and arbitration like the one that has existed in NSW for over 120 years and also existed in the Commonwealth too in the 20th century. Higgins J, who was the second President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, wrote extra-curially (HB Higgins, A New Province for Law and Order (Constable, 1922) at page 15) that: The system of arbitration adopted by the [Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth)] is based on unionism. Indeed, without unions it is hard to conceive how arbitration could be worked.
In Australian Tramway Employees' Association v Prahran & Malvern Tramway Trust (Union Badge Case) (1913) 17 CLR 680, Isaacs and Rich JJ (as Isaacs CJ then was) stated at 703-704: [W]e should be blind to everyday facts and events, if we failed to observe that the aim of industrial struggles is to raise the personal status and condition of the workers. To this end, right or wrong, their organisation is a real and accepted instrument incidental to the whole process. … The direct object of the claim to wear a badge as a mark of unionism is to place the workers in stronger position relatively to their employers with respect to the conditions of their employment.
Their Honours stated at 694-695: The whole industry, and particularly the later history of industrial conciliation and arbitration, demonstrates that trade disputes are dealt with by unions, not by units. Experience as well as common sense convinces the mind that isolated workers can seldom or never succeed in inducing their employers or prospective employers to introduce changes involving general schemes of alteration, and sometimes considerable expense, as, for instance, new methods of sanitation, or a minimum wage or shorter hours, or non-employment of persons of tender years, and so on. Nor, indeed, in many cases could isolated employers, however personally disposed to admit the justice or desirability of their employés' claims, afford to overlook the fact of competition of other employers, whose views ran on different lines. Collective bargaining is therefore, as is well known, necessary to the prevention of such disputes, and if, unfortunately, they arise, collective action is absolutely essential to their successful termination. But there can be no collective bargaining or other action without organization. Consequently the Commonwealth Act, when it provides for organizations, supplies a necessary link in the chain of effective settlement of the claims of individuals. This is a clear and sufficient answer to the suggestion by the respondents that the badge is merely an adjunct to the organization, and not relevant to the industrial claims of the employés themselves. Everyone knows, and this very contest indicates, that the use of the badge by the employés is a substantial means of strengthening their industrial position relatively to their employers-and thereby both of protecting their existing rights, and of obtaining larger rights.
In Bluescope Steel Ltd v Australian Workers' Union, NSW (2004) 137 IR 176; [2004] NSWIRComm 222 ("BlueScope [2004]"), the Full Bench (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Marks J) held (at 191 [40]) that the Act "recognises that a union, as a corporate entity, is the instrument through which the industrial conduct of its members may be regulated". This observation is critical because, as counsel for the prosecutor correctly stated, the Act does not seek to directly regulate the conduct of employees or union members at an individual level. Instead, it conceives of the union as the body in which its members are regulated. This is clearly seen by the fact that individual employees or members do not have standing to notify an industrial dispute to the Commission under s 130 of the Act but an industrial organisation of employees does.
I pause to note that this analysis does not seek to trespass into the area of enterprise agreement making in many modern industrial statutes which recognises non-union participation in such schemes.
All the species of "industrial action" in the definition of that expression in the Dictionary to the Act must be taken "in connection with an industrial dispute". The link between industrial action and industrial dispute draws attention to the Commission's conciliation and arbitration powers in Ch 3 of the Act. Where the industrial action is in the form of a strike by employees, the role of unions as an organisation of employees with the requisite standing to notify industrial disputes and participate in the Commission's processes becomes particularly significant. It can be inferred that the Act envisages that the union would be acting for and representing its members in the conciliation and arbitration of the industrial dispute in which its members are taking or threatening to take, in support of claims that may be the subject of conciliation or arbitration.
Because of the fact that the Act directly regulates the conduct of the union, it must be the case that the orders, directions and recommendations made by the Commission can be directed towards the union. As Bathurst CJ made clear in PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018], a dispute order under s 137(1)(a) of the Act can be made against a union. This was also explained in BlueScope [2004]. The Full Bench (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Marks J) stated at 190-191 [37]-[38]: [37] First, there is no doubt that a dispute order may be made directly against a union pursuant to s 137(1)(a). It was not submitted by either party in this matter that the Commission did not have the power to make an order under that section against an industrial organisation. Section 222 of the Act establishes that a union that is registered under the Act is a "body corporate" and has perpetual succession. A body thus described would therefore come within any definition of "person" and particularly that in the Interpretation Act 1987 (see s 21). The reference in s 137(1)(a) to "a person" is a reference, in our view, to a legal person, and is not confined to a natural person. The word "person" in s 137(1)(a) is broader than the word "employee", a difference which is clearly established by the distinguishing use of those words in ss 137(1)(a) and (c) respectively. Whereas s 137(1)(a) allows the Commission to make broad orders that a "person" cease or refrain from taking industrial action, s137(1)(c) specifies that the Commission may order an employer not to dismiss an "employee". Whilst "employee" falls within the broader category of "person", its use in the context of s 137(1)(c) is narrower. [38] Further, the power to make dispute orders under s 137 falls within Ch 3 of the Act regarding "Industrial Disputes", a core element of which is disputation involving employers and industrial organisations, the usual parties in arbitration proceedings. The power to make dispute orders springs from the arbitration of disputes, and is identified in s 136(1)(c) as being one of the powers available to the Commission in arbitration proceedings. Thirdly, s 138(1) identifies those against whom dispute orders may be made, and includes a party to an industrial dispute. Section 130(1)(a) of the Act specifically provides that a union may be a party to an industrial dispute. Finally, a significant element of s 139 regarding contravention of dispute orders focuses on the implications of such a contravention by an industrial organisation (see, for example, s 139(3)(d)).
It is also clear that the consequences for a contravention of a dispute order are directed towards unions and employers. When one considers the list of items in s 139(3) of the Act, it is clear that none of those items can be directed to individual employees or members of a union. Individual employees are not parties to an enterprise agreement or industrial instrument. Importantly, as set out above, penalties cannot be imposed against individual employees but can be directed against industrial organisations.
If Mr Boncardo's submission that unions cannot take industrial action in the form of a strike (and that only employees can) is accepted, then it seems likely to produce the rather curious result that a contravention by employees of an order made under s 137(1)(a) of the Act "to cease or refrain from taking industrial action" can never be punished or penalised. It would create an immunity of sorts for such contraventions. I doubt that the Parliament intended to create that result given the place of industrial action in a system of conciliation and arbitration.
In expressing these preliminary views excited by submissions (albeit briefly) made in the light of Education Secretary v AEU [2022], I am mindful of the fact that a direction under s 136(1)(a) of the Act can have coercive force and that a failure to comply with a direction can give rise to proceedings for contempt of the Commission under s 180 of the Act: Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of NSW South Wales v Secretary for Industrial Relations [2018] NSWIRComm 1061 at [86] (Chief Commissioner Kite SC, Commissioners Murphy and Seymour). But there is a large question as to whether the power in s 136(1)(a) of the Act extends to making a direction to cease and refrain from taking industrial action when a dispute order can be made under ss 136(1)(c) and 137(1)(a) of the Act with that effect. There is also a large question as to whether there could be a charge of contempt when Parliament has made a considered judgment in s 139(3) of the Act about financial penalties and other remedies for a breach of an order to cease or refrain from taking industrial action: Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2017] at 731 [39] (Fagan J).
Turning next to the second matter. A union that is a registered industrial organisation under the Act may have a corporate status or "shell" but it must always be remembered that a union is an organised collective group of workers: see R v Cawthorne; Ex parte Federated Clerks Union of Australia (South Australia Branch) (1979) 22 SASR 433 at 436 (King CJ); E I Sykes and H J Glasbeek, Labour Law in Australia (Butterworths, 1972) at page 702.
Like a corporation, a union must act through its officers, employees and members by giving a natural person authority to act on its behalf. The corollary is that the union can be liable in law for conduct that it authorises, directs, ratifies or takes the benefit of. In Rowe v Transport Workers' Union of Australia (1998) 90 FCR 95, Cooper J at 111-113 held: The TWU and the TWU (Qld), as bodies corporate and as industrial associations have a legal personality which is a fiction. They cannot act other than through natural persons. The principles applicable to primary corporate liability in respect of a corporation's own acts were stated by Lord Reid in Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattras [1972] AC 153. They were adopted by the High Court of Australia as a correct statement of the law in this country in Hamilton v Whitehead (1988) 166 CLR 121 at 127 and Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477 at 514-515. Lord Reid said (at 170): "I must start by considering the nature of the personality which by a fiction the law attributes to a corporation. A living person has a mind which can have knowledge or intention or be negligent and he has hands to carry out his intentions. A corporation has none of these: it must act through living persons, though not always one or the same person. Then the person who acts is not speaking or acting for the company. He is acting as the company and his mind which directs his acts is the mind of the company. There is no question of the company being vicariously liable. He is not acting as a servant, representative, agent or delegate. He is an embodiment of the company or, one could say, he hears and speaks through the persona of the company, within his appropriate sphere, and his mind is the mind of the company. If it is a guilty mind then that guilt is the guilt of the company. It must be a question of law whether, once the facts have been ascertained, a person in doing particular things is to be regarded as the company or merely as the company's servant or agent. In that case any liability of the company can only be a statutory or vicarious liability." … A body or group of persons which is not authorised by the constitution, rules or membership of an industrial association, cannot bind the industrial association and it is not liable for such conduct unless it ratifies the conduct or takes the benefit of it: Giblan v National Amalgamated Labourers' Union of Great Britain and Ireland [1903] 2 KB 600 at 617, 620, 625; Denaby & Cadeby Main Collieries Ltd v Yorkshire Miners' Association [1906] AC 384 at 390; Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v Burgess Brothers Ltd (1916) 21 CLR 129 at 133, 136, 137-138; Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association v Federated Seaman's Union of Australasia (1923) 33 CLR 297 at 303, 307, 311, 314-315.
This is consistent with the observation of Boland J (as his Honour then was) in BlueScope v AWU [2005] NSWIRComm 99 at [91] which The summonses are directed against the AWU and the AFMEPKIU. No summonses were sought against individual members of either of these two organisations or against individual officers or employees of the organisations. Of course, an organisation can only act through its members, officers and employees and, therefore, any contravening act of a member, officer or employee may be held to be a contravention by the organisation.
This notion is reinforced by the statements in the High Court's decision in Burwood Cinema Limited and Others v The Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees' Association (1925) 35 CLR 528 ("Burwood Cinema"). Starke J explained that a union stands in the place of its members, not as a mere agent but is a principal that acts on their account. His Honour stated at 551 that: An organization registered under the [Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth)] is not a mere agent of its members: it stands in their place, and acts on their account and is a representative of the class associated together in the organization. It is, as my brother Higgins said, "a party principal," and "not a mere agent or figurehead."
Isaacs J (as his Honour then was) stated at 540 that: If we confine our attention for the moment to disputes between employers and employed, we have to visualize the disputants respectively as portions of groups representing capital and labour. "Employer" and "employee" are terms which denote, not individuals contracting with each other whose industrial relations arise out of and are limited by their specific contracts, but membership of a group with which the individual has identified himself in relation to a given industry. The concept has grown out of the necessity for collective bargaining and collective action, involving organization more or less formal and more or less complete. Long before 1900 the identification of the individual with the group was thoroughly established. In 1892 in Dr. Garran's Report on New South Wales it was stated, that "the federation of labour and the counter-federation of employers is the characteristic feature of the labour question in the present epoch." Without such identification there never can be effective action to meet the difficulties of modern industrial life. [Emphasis added.]
An application of the views of Isaacs and Starke JJ in the context of a union "taking" industrial action can be seen in Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Clarke (2006) 149 IR 224; [2006] FCA 245 ("CFMEU v Clarke"). At 236 [60]-[62], Nicholson J stated: [60] The respondent challenges the claim of the appellant that the actions taken in this respect are capable of being characterised as intended to be preventative of the undertaking of industrial action by the workers. It is said this is so because the evidence demonstrates that Mr Powell, Mr Molina and Mr Levy pursued the Issues with the Employer after the cessation of work began and while it continued. I accept that there is appropriate evidence that was the case. In the case of s 178 of the [Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)], the respondent contends the cessation of work itself was sufficient to establish the liability of the first appellant under that section. In the case of s 170MN, the respondent relies on the evidence principally referred to in connection with the preceding group of grounds of appeal. [61] The contentions of the appellants in relation to preventative action can only be of significance if it is open to acceptance that the "Union" (being relevantly the appellants) acted as a separate juristic entity from the Employees. In my opinion, this simply cannot be the case. I have set out earlier in these reasons the particulars of the constitutional arrangements of the Union. Examination of that shows that the Union consists of the Employees. The Union comprises every part of the Union. There is no constitutional concept of the Union on the one hand and the Employees on the other hand. The Employees are as much an integral part of the Union as the officials. The consequence is that if the Employees make a decision to go on strike, the Union is on strike. [62] Once it is understood that a duality of juridical existence is not possible between the Employees and the Union, the evidence falls for consideration in this light. If officials of the Union did give advice to the Employees that they would be wiser to follow a path of negotiation, that cannot exempt the Union from any liability from the undertaking of industrial action when the Employees embark upon it. In Skilled Engineering Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (2001) 108 IR 116 at 119 Finkelstein J relied upon evidence of union organisers having been involved in discussions with employer management about the two issues of concern which caused workers to walk off the site, to suggest that they had a role to play in organising the strike. [Emphasis in [61] added.]
Isaacs J (as his Honour then was) in Burwood Cinema explained that regulation of industrial organisations, as distinct from individual employees and employers, is an "essential condition" to achieving industrial peace. This emphasises the centrality of unions in a system of conciliation and arbitration. At 541, his Honour stated: Why is "organization" an "essential condition"? Plainly, because an "industry or some selected branch of it" is for the purpose regarded as one entity. It is impossible to isolate the competitors and segregate their industrial interests. Every competitor acts and interacts, and more or less affects the rest of those on the same field. If, then, sec. 51 (xxxv.) of the Australian Constitution is to be faithfully applied in the broad sense already adopted, so as to be effective to cope with the destructive evil of industrial warfare - an evil which, if unchecked, would threaten all national welfare - it must necessarily be competent to provide by conciliation and arbitration for the "essential condition" referred to.
The views of Isaacs and Starke JJ in Burwood Cinema were also supported by Powers J. His Honour emphasised that the role of unions in a system of conciliation and arbitration means that it is more than a mere agent or nominal claimant. For the proper role of a union in a system where a system of arbitration plays a central role in resolving industrial dispute, a union should be liable to a penalty for a strike. Powers J stated at 544-545 as follows: The Act was passed to allow collective bargaining and settlement of disputes, and not individual bargaining and settlement of disputes between employers and employees. As my brother Higgins put it in the case of Australian Workers' Union v. Pastoralists' Federal Council [(1917) 23 CLR 22 ("Pastoralists' Federal Council") at 26], "the [Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth)] recognizes unions, and makes unionism a part of its scheme. One of the 'chief objects' of the Act is 'to facilitate and encourage the organization of representative bodies of employees' (sec. 2 (vi.)); and Part V. of the Act is specially devoted to the constitution of organizations for the purposes of the Act. No plaint can be submitted to the Court except by an organization (sec. 19b); it is the organization that is empowered, in the case of a plaint, to make any agreement for the settlement of the dispute (sec. 24). The organization cannot be treated as a mere agent, or as the nominal claimant (as in the case of the public officer of a bank); for it is bound by the award, with all its members; it is liable in its funds for breaches of the award (secs. 29, 38 (c) (d) (e)). The remedy of arbitration being substituted for the remedy of strike, the organization, as well as the actual employees, is made liable to a penalty for anything in the nature of a strike (sec. 6).".
There is great similarity between the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) (repealed) ("CCA Act") and the NSW Act. Like the CCA Act, the NSW Act recognises unions as a key industrial participant; one of its objects is "to encourage participation in industrial relations by representative bodies of employees and employers" (s 3(d)); and, devotes Ch 5 of the Act to the constitution, responsible management and democratic control of industrial organisation. It is also clear that, where there is a dispute between employers and employees, the union is a party, and the only party, that can notify the Commission (s 130(1)) and settle the dispute or any part of it with the employer. (There have been some decisions where the issue of the rights of employees in industrial dispute proceedings have been discussed but they do not alter the core of this proposition: see Monk v Dow Corning Australia Pty Ltd [1984] 2 NSWLR 485 (Fisher P, Cahill J, as his Honour then was, and Watson J); The Director-General, NSW Department of Health, in respect of the Hunter New England Area Health Service and Australian Medical Association (NSW) Limited (2008) 182 IR 353; [2008] NSWIRComm 112 at 371-372 [64]-[67] (Walton J, Vice-President, Schmidt and Staff JJ)) Under the Act, a union is also empowered to be a party to awards, enterprise agreements and other industrial instruments on behalf of its members and employees. A union is also bound by the award and can be made liable for breaching the award.
The passage from Powers J referred to s 6(1) of the CCA Act, which provided: (1) No person or organization shall, on account of any industrial dispute, do anything in the nature of a lock-out or strike; or continue any lock-out or strike.
It is noteworthy that s 6(1) related to a lock-out or strike in relation to any industrial dispute. The legislation was amended to add s 6A which related to a lock-out or strike in relation to an industrial dispute settled by a Federal award. The legislative purpose of ss 6 and 6A was to promote the system of conciliation and arbitration that had been established in the CCA Act. As Isaacs J (as his Honour then was) said in Walsh v Sainsbury (1926) 36 CLR 464 at 475: Reducing the question to its simplest elements, it amounts to this:-- Before getting any award disputants in an industrial dispute are by sec. 6 of the Arbitration Act forbidden under penalty to strike or lock-out. That is plainly a necessary provision requiring disputants to bring their quarrels to the Court instead of interrupting public services.
The reference to "disputants" in that passage could not have referred to individual employees or members of a union because those persons could not "bring their quarrels" to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration: CCA Act s 19(b). The term "disputants" could only, insofar that it relates to disputes involving employees, have been a reference to unions.
In Stemp v AGM, a challenge was made to the validity of s 6 of the CCA Act. The majority (Barton ACJ, Isaacs, Higgins and Powers JJ, as Isaacs CJ then was) held that the provision was valid. Higgins J explained that the CCA Act needed to prevent industrial action to protect the system of conciliation and arbitration established by that Act. At 243, his Honour stated as follows: To be valid, it must be relevant to the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by methods of conciliation or arbitration. What, then, has Parliament done by sec. 6? In an Act by which Parliament provides a tribunal to conciliate, and, if necessary, to arbitrate between, industrial disputants on the basis of reason and fair play, Parliament says that the disputants shall not, nor (as I assume the meaning to be) shall others, try to settle the dispute by the method of economic force or pressure-by "strike" or "lock-out." A dispute cannot be settled by two inconsistent methods at the same time; and if the method of reason is to be followed, the method of force - economic force - must be prohibited. [Emphasis in original.]
In the early years of Federation, many unions incurred penalties under ss 6 and 6A of the CCA Act for strikes that were taken by their members. Those unions would regularly bring appeals on various grounds and unions also challenged the constitutional validity of those provisions, including whether they exceeded the power of the Commonwealth Parliament under s 51(xxxv) of the Commonwealth Constitution. Much ink was spilt on these appeals and constitutional challenges in the Commonwealth Law Reports, including Metropolitan Coal Co of Sydney Ltd v Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation (1917) 24 CLR 85; Waddell v Australian Workers' Union (1922) 30 CLR 570; and Metropolitan Gas Co v Federated Gas Employees' Industrial Union (1925) 35 CLR 449. But if the defendant's submission were to be accepted, the words "or organization" in those provisions were mere surplusage because a union cannot do anything in the nature of a strike or continue a strike. Those cases could have been resolved much quicker.
There has been consideration by the former Industrial Court on whether a union can legally take industrial action. In BlueScope [2004], the Full Bench explained that the corporate status of unions, the role prescribed for them under the Act and the fact that a union is a party to an industrial dispute and therefore at its centre, meant that the union can be "responsible for the industrial action in question (by its direction and control) or the coordinating entity for its fulfilment (in the sense of convening meetings and being the centrepiece of the transmission of information and consideration of any action to be taken by the union's members)": at 191 [41] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Marks J).
The Full Bench also referred to a decision of Hungerford J in Public Employment Office v The NSW Fire Brigade Employees Union [1999] NSWIRComm 556. His Honour, in that case, made orders under s 137 of the Act directing the union to cease all industrial action by a certain time and further directing that the union and its members refrain from taking industrial action during a specified time frame. The Full Bench considered that his Honour was entitled to make the orders he did: at 192 [44].
Further, in NUW v TNT, the Full Bench considered that orders made by Schmidt J against the NUW "requiring it to cease all industrial action against TNT" was an order that was "regularly made". The Full Bench in BlueScope [2004] affirmed this decision.
Counsel for the prosecutor relied on the Full Bench's decision in BlueScope [2004] at [40] in aid of her submissions. However, counsel for the defendant in his reply note accused the prosecutor of citing that decision "a-contextually and selectively". Mr Boncardo stated that BlueScope [2004] "did not concern whether an industrial association could itself take industrial action". This is not correct. The Full Bench was dealing with the "narrow" or "strict" interpretation of s 137(1)(a) of the Act which had been adopted by Haylen J in BHP v AWU [2003] NSWIRComm 423. In making arguments about the correctness of that decision, the appellant made submissions at 188 [24] as to whether there can be a "basis for ever making a dispute order against a union to refrain from engaging in industrial action". In resolving this issue, it was necessary to then resolve whether ancillary dispute orders can be made requiring an industrial association to take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with dispute orders requiring the cessation of industrial action. When one reads BlueScope [2004] properly and as a whole, submission by counsel for the defendant should not be accepted
This issue arose again in both BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd (now known as BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd) and The Australian Workers' Union, NSW [2006] NSWIRComm 263 and Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales [2006] NSWIRComm 274, which were contravention proceedings under s 139 of the Act.
In the first case, counsel for the AWU, Mr Adam Searle, submitted that the authorities support the proposition the union can only be held liable in accordance with the relevant union rules for the acts of its delegates and members when the facts establish the union authorised their acts: at [23]. Kavanagh J surveyed the authorities and concluded that an act by members of the union can be held to be the act of the union provided that it was authorised under the Rules of the Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales for the acts of its members to be held as acts of the AWU: at [30].
In the second case, it was clear that members of the AWU engaged in industrial action but counsel for the AWU, Mr Adam Hatcher (as the Vice President then was), challenged the proposition that the AWU per se could engage in industrial action and submitted that it would only be in rare circumstances that an officer of a union could be regarded as engaging in industrial action: at [32]. Boland J, as his Honour then was, followed BlueScope [2004] and found that an order requiring the AWU to cease and refrain from taking industrial action was a valid order: at [37]. His Honour found that the AWU and its members did not cease and refrain from taking industrial action and that the union, its officers and its members employed contravened the dispute orders: at [48].
In both cases, the Court held that, where members of a union take industrial action, the acts of those members can be held to be acts of the union such that the union is also taking industrial action.
The emphasis placed by Kavanagh J on the rules of the union are obviously directed to the issues that arise when there are "wild-cat" strikes. This does not detract that strikes by members of a union can still be attributed to the union itself. Murphy, Aickin and Wilson JJ observed in R v Bowen; Ex parte Amalgamated Metal Workers' and Shipwrights' Union (1980) 144 CLR 462 at 479-480 that: It can rationally be presumed that action (including industrial action of the kind referred to in [Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth)]) of a committee of management, or a branch committee of management, or of an officer, employee or agent is the action of an organization of employees, but it is a notorious fact of industrial life that it cannot rationally be presumed that action of a mere member or group of mere members is the action of the organization. This would be so even if an organization could control who becomes and remains its members, but it cannot (see s. 144 of the Act). Also members of organizations are often members of other organizations, and of other industrial and non-industrial bodies which may take industrial action (as defined in the Act).
This is consistent with the observations of the High Court in The Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v Burgess Brothers Ltd (1916) 21 CLR 129 ("Waterside Workers") and Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association v Federated Seamen's Union of A/asia (1923) 33 CLR 297.
In Waterside Workers, the appellant, the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia ("WWFA"), was a union of employees registered under the CCA Act. Its rules assumed that its members would belong to a Branch of the organisation and provided that each branch might make rules applicable to itself only that supplement the rules of the organization. Critically, rule 16 of the WWFA's rules provided that "every branch may conduct its local business and settle its own disputes without interference from the organization". After members of the Hobart branch of the WWFA engaged in acts in the nature of a strike, the respondent, Burgess Brothers Ltd, brought proceedings against the organisation.
The High Court held that the WWFA was not liable for the strike action done by a Branch without the knowledge of the governing body of the organisation. In reaching that conclusion, the Court appears to accept that, where there is authorisation, the action of members taking strike action can be attributable to the union: at 133-134 (Griffth CJ), 135-136 (Barton J), 137-138 (Isaacs J, as his Honour then was). Griffith CJ stated at 133: It is manifest that the appellants, being a corporation, can only act through agents. It was, therefore, necessary for the plaintiffs to establish that the acts complained of were done by their authorized agents. There is no question of express authority. The governing body of the appellant organization had in fact no knowledge of the acts complained of until after they had been done, and then, so far from approving or ratifying them, expressed its disapproval. The persons doing the acts did not even purport to act on behalf of the organization. I must not be supposed to suggest that under such circumstances any attempted ratification would have been effectual.
In the defendant's written submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of Bathurst CJ in PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018]. In that case, the appellant union submitted that order A1 of the dispute orders, to the extent that it purported to order the union to "immediately to cease organising industrial action", went beyond ordering the appellant to "refrain from taking industrial action" and was not supported by s 137(1)(a) of the Act: at 784 [92]. The appellant advanced a construction of that provision such that, if the industrial action did not occur, there could be no breach of an order directing an organisation to "refrain from taking industrial action".
Bathurst CJ (with whom Gleeson and Simpson JJA agreed) held that the dispute orders were not dependent on the strike occurring. In his Honour's consideration, the critical passages concerning the issue of whether a union can legally take industrial action are at 789-790 as follows: [118] … Industrial organisations do not themselves engage in strikes, adopt practices relating to the performance of work under par (a) of the definition of "industrial action", or refuse to attend for work or to perform work so as to attract par (c) of the definition. Further, if the expression "adopted in connection with an industrial dispute" in par (b) means "adopted by employees", then there is no industrial action by an industrial organisation in respect of which dispute orders can be made. The relevant industrial action would be the "adoption" of the ban, restriction or limitation by the employees rather than any conduct by the industrial organisation. … [119] … I think that there is more force in the construction of the phrase "adopted in connection with an industrial dispute" as merely meaning "put into effect in connection with an industrial dispute" rather than "adopted by employees". However, even on that construction, it is again difficult to see how an industrial organisation could be ordered to "cease or refrain from taking industrial action", when the action is necessarily "taken" or "put into effect" by employees. … [124] Therefore, in considering the meaning of the text of s 137(1)(a) alongside its statutory context and the purpose of the IR Act as a whole, it is first relevant to bear in mind that dispute orders can be made in dealing with a "threatened or likely industrial dispute", as I noted at [122] above, and that, once it is accepted that orders can be made against an industrial organisation which cannot itself take "industrial action" as defined under the IR Act, then the power in s 137(1)(a) must be read to extend to the Commission ordering the industrial organisation to "cease or refrain" from causing its members to take industrial action. This would encompass the dispute orders made by the Commission in the present case. [Emphasis added.]
These passages, at first glance, may appear to support the submission of the defendant that a union cannot itself take industrial action. However, these passages must be understood in context. First, it is noteworthy that the summons initiating the matter had not sought relief with respect to the taking of the industrial action itself. Thus, it was not necessary for the Court of Appeal to decide this point.
Secondly, the appellant union had actually conceded that an industrial organisation could take industrial action. At 789 [89], Bathurst CJ stated that "[c]ounsel for the appellant accepted that an industrial organisation giving a direction to its members not to go to work comes within the definition of industrial action, but that an order under s 137(1)(a) that an industrial organisation and its members refrain from taking industrial action would only be contravened when the members complied with the direction": at 783 [89].
Thirdly and perhaps most critically, Bathurst CJ stated at 789 [118] that "[i]t was not contended that an industrial organisation could be fined simply as a result of its members contravening dispute orders". This was the underlying basis or submission that the consideration of Bathurst CJ was responding to and it is in this context that his Honour's consideration must be understood.
It is clear that only employees can engage in the physical act of taking strike action. A strike is a concerted withdrawal of labour or the cessation of work in furtherance of an industrial dispute: see Latham v Singleton [1981] 2 NSWLR 843 at 864 (Nagle CJ at CL); Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 at 1204 (Lord Devlin); Australian Iron & Steel Ltd v Federated Ironworkers Association [1950] AR (NSW) 629 (Webb, Ferguson and De Baun JJ); McKernan v Fraser (1931) 46 CLR 343 at 361 (Dixon J); FRNSW v FBEU [2013] (Boland J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Staff J). A union, as a body corporate, cannot physically withdraw labour or otherwise perform the conduct in para (a)-(c) in the definition of "industrial action". The prosecutor's point is that the actions of members of the union can, where authorised, directed or ratified, be attributed to the union because it is the members that form and bring about a trade union.
It is true then that a strike is necessarily "taken" or "put into effect" by employees. For without employees (or members of unions) withdrawing their labour, there is no strike. Of course, a union cannot engage in industrial action by itself. No amount of directions from a union can bring about a strike if no employees comply with it. But once employees who are members of the directing union comply with it and cease working, it can (as counsel for the appellant in PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] submitted) be attributed to the union. It can then be said that the union (as referring to the organised collective group employees who are its members) is taking industrial action. Respectfully, this notion was not something that Bathurst CJ had excluded in PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] for the reasons I have given above.
Against this backdrop, or at least without considering the issues raised therein, the submission by counsel for the defendant that Education Secretary v AEU [2022] was "plainly wrong" may at least be somewhat premature, inadequately researched and, upon a proper analysis of that decision, misconceived. In that matter, the defendant union had, subject to the orders being valid, admitted pleaded contravention F that it and their members took industrial action in the form of a 24 hour strike: at [270]. The term of the dispute order which grounded pleaded contravention F was to "refrain from taking industrial action": see [12] and [31]. The defendant union's admission was properly made. My consideration at [343]-[344], which counsel for the defendant takes issue with, was about whether pleaded contravention F was a separate contravention or was part of the course of conduct that I had found for pleaded contraventions A to E. I concluded that it formed part of a separate contravention. Contrary to the submission of counsel for the prosecutor, I was not considering with the live question in this case about with whether a union could legally take industrial action in those paragraphs. I did not need to do so because the union had admitted that it failed to refrain from taking industrial action.
A further observation should be made as to submissions of the kind. The expression "plainly wrong", in relation to a judicial decision, is not one that is used lightly. In Gett v Tabet (2009) 254 ALR 504; [2009] NSWCA 76, Allsop P (as the Chief Justice then was), Beazley and Basten JJA (as Her Excellency then was) stated at 565 [294]: The phrases "plainly wrong" or "clearly wrong" can be understood to focus on at least one or more of the following attributes of a ruling: (a) the fact of error is immediately … apparent from reading the relevant judgment; (b) the strong conviction of the later court that the earlier judgment was erroneous and not merely the choice of an approach which was open, but no longer preferred, … and (c) the nature of the error that can be demonstrated with a degree of clarity by the application of correct legal analysis.
The judgment in Education Secretary v AEU [2022] at [343]ff is not inconsistent with PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018]. Counsel for the defendant has not made good his submission that Education Secretary v AEU [2022] should be departed from in accordance with the principles in Ming Tian at 336 [38] (Gleeson J).
The defendant drew attention to a number of decisions in the Federal Court that had considered the meaning of "industrial action" in s 19(1) of the Fair Work Act. The definition of "industrial action" in that Act (and its predecessor statutes) is in similar terms to that expression in the Dictionary of the NSW Act. The definitions of that expression in both Acts include the phrase "by employees" or "by an employee". However, before the introduction of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth) ("Work Choices Act"), the repealed WR Act contained a definition of "industrial action" that did not include the phrases "by employees" or "by an employee".
In Cahill v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) (2008) 170 FCR 357; [2008] FCA 1292, Kenny J observed that the inclusion of this phrase into the definition of "industrial action" meant that "it became clear in terms that a relevant 'ban, limitation or restriction on the performance of work' must be imposed 'by an employee'": at 380 [58] (emphasis in original).
Similarly, in Ambulance Victoria v United Voice (2014) 245 IR 375; [2014] FCA 1119, Tracey J said that "the addition of the words 'by an employee' in the extant definition confirms that 'industrial action' as defined in s 19(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act is 'so confined'": at 382 [22].
Both of those single Judge decisions were affirmed by the Full Court in Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2015) 230 FCR 298; [2015] FCAFC 25. Logan, Bromberg and Katzmann JJ held at 325 [141] that: The words "by an employee" in s 19(1)(b) confine the action covered by that paragraph to a ban, limitation or restriction imposed by employees on the performance of their work or their acceptance of or offering for work. The conduct of persons other than the employees whose work is banned, limited or restricted is not capable of constituting "industrial action" within the meaning of s 19(1)(b). It follows that the CFMEU could not have engaged in or (as the primary judge apparently found) "taken" industrial action.
Those cases in the Federal Court does weigh against the notion that a union can legally take industrial action. However, it does not appear from the law reports that the single Judges or the Full Court in those cases had considered the issue of attributing the conduct of employees who were members of a union to that particular union.
Indeed, before the amendment by the Work Choices Act, the Full Court of the Federal Court had observed "that para (c) [the equivalent of s 19(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act] in its entirety is directed to the conduct of employees who engage in conduct limiting the work they do or the circumstances in which they offer to do it": Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (1998) 89 FCR 200 at 213 (Spender, Moore and Branson JJ). Notwithstanding the fact that the acts were done by employees, there were decisions of the Federal Court recognising that the conduct of employees who were union members can attributable to their union: see, eg, CFMEU v Clarke at 236 [60]-[62]; Skilled Engineering Limited v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (2001) 108 IR 116; [2001] FCA 1397 at 116 [2] (Finkelstein J).
The written submissions of the defendant also referred to Transport Workers Union of NSW v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2008) 166 FCR 108; [2008] FCAFC 26. In that case, the Full Court of the Federal Court was hearing an application for judicial review of the decision of the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in Transport Workers' Union of New South Wales v TNT Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 154 IR 256. The Full Bench had held at 260 [14] that an order that unprotected industrial action should stop, not occur and not be organised could be directed to a union pursuant to s 496(1) of the WR Act. Giudice J, President, Hamilton DP and Hingley C stated: It would be artificial to limit the issue of an order against a trade union to cases in which there is a finding that the union is organising the action. If in a particular case a union has been representing employees in negotiations and otherwise active in representing their interests, and unprotected industrial action is occurring or threatened, there is no good reason why an order that industrial action stop or not occur should not be buttressed by an order against that union.
In the Full Court, Gray and North JJ held that the kind of industrial action to which s 496(1) of the WR Act is directed is not industrial action that a union can engage in by itself: at 122 [22]. However, their Honours did not, nor did the Court need to, consider issues of attributing the conduct of members to the union because s 4(5) of the WR Act provided a deeming provision such that their Honours found that "an order that industrial action that is happening stop might be made against a union, on the basis that industrial action by employees, or an employer, amounts to engaging in conduct": at 122 [23].
As mentioned, because I am of the view that the pleadings of the prosecutor are deficient, it is not necessary to fully resolve this question. So much of the foregoing analysis was not captured or even barely canvassed in the research notes of the parties or their earlier submissions. There is a rich history of industrial law in this State and the Commonwealth that has considered or touched upon this question. As I emphasised above, the view given is only a preliminary one. This important question must be left for another day after the benefit of full argument.

[66]

Relevant Authorities on the "Course of Conduct" Principle

The "course of conduct" or "one transaction" principle is a sentencing principle the object of which is to guide a judicial officer in the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion. Whilst articulated in a criminal context it is well-settled that this analysis applies in civil penalty proceedings: Education Secretary v AEU [2022] at [331] (Walton J), citing Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Williams (2009) 191 IR 445; [2009] FCAFC 171; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Cahill (2010) 194 IR 461; [2010] FCAFC 39 ("Cahill"); Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The Nine Brisbane Sites Appeal) (2019) 269 FCR 262; [2019] FCAFC 59; Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Registered Organisations Commissioner (2020) 283 FCR 404; [2020] FCAFC 232.
The common law course of conduct principle was distilled by Owen JA in Royer v Western Australia (2009) 197 A Crim R 319; [2009] WASCA 139 at 328 [22]: At its heart, the one transaction principle recognises that, where there is an interrelationship between the legal and factual elements of two or more offences with which an offender has been charged, care needs to be taken so that the offender is not punished twice (or more often) for what is essentially the same criminality. The interrelationship may be legal, in the sense that it arises from the elements of the crimes. It may also be factual, because of a temporal or geographical link or the presence of other circumstances compelling the conclusion that the crimes arise out of substantially the same act, omission or occurrences.
Wells J described the principle as follows in Attorney-General (SA) v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84 at [92]-[93]: It is both impracticable and undesirable to attempt to lay down comprehensive principles according to which a sentencing judge may determine. in every case. whether sentences should be ordered to be served concurrently or consecutively. According to an inflexible Draconian logic. all sentences should be consecutive, because every offence, as a separate case of criminal liability, would justify the exaction of a separate penalty. But such a logic could never hold. When an accused is on trial it is part of the procedural privilege to which he is entitled that he should be made aware of precisely what charges he is to meet. But the practice and principles of sentencing owe little to such procedure; what is fitting is that a convicted prisoner should be sentenced, not simply and indiscriminately for every act that can be singled out and brought within the compass of a technically identifiable conviction, but for what, viewing the circumstances broadly and reasonably, can be characterised as his criminal conduct. Sometimes, a single act of criminal conduct will comprise two or more technically identified crimes. Sometimes, two or more technically identified crimes will comprise two or more courses of criminal conduct that, reasonably characterized, are really separate invasions of the community's right to peace and order, notwithstanding that they are historically interdependent; the courses of criminal conduct may coincide with the technical offences or they may not. Sometimes, the process of characterization rests upon an analysis of fact and degree leading to two possible answers, each of which, in the hands of the trial judge, could be made to work justice. The practice of imposing either concurrent or consecutive sentences cannot avoid creating anomalies, or apparent anomalies, from time to time. What must be done is to use the various tools of analysis to mould a just sentence for the conduct of which the prisoner has been guilty. Where there are truly two or more incursions into criminal conduct, consecutive sentences will generally be appropriate. Where, whatever the number of technically identifiable offences committed, the prisoner was truly engaged upon one multi-faceted course of criminal conduct, the judge is likely to find concurrent sentences just and convenient. There are dangers in each course, Where consecutive sentences are imposed it may be thought that they are kept artificially apart where they should, to some extent, overlap. Where concurrent sentences are imposed, there is the danger that the primary term does not adequately reflect the aggravated nature of each important feature of the criminal conduct under consideration.
The principle was explained by Middleton and Gordon JJ in Cahill at 473 [39] as follows: It is a concept which arises in the criminal context generally and one which may be relevant to the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion. The principle recognises that where there is an interrelationship between the legal and factual elements of two or more offences for which an offender has been charged, care must be taken to ensure that the offender is not punished twice for what is essentially the same criminality. That requires careful identification of what is "the same criminality" and that is necessarily a factually specific inquiry. Bare identity of motive for commission of separate offences will seldom suffice to establish the same criminality in separate and distinct offending acts or omissions. [Emphasis in original.]
In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Hillside (Australia New Media) Pty Ltd (t/as Bet365) (No 2) [2016] FCA 698, Beach J stated at [25]: [T]he "course of conduct" principle does not have paramountcy in the process of assessing an appropriate penalty. It cannot of itself operate as a de facto limit on the penalty to be imposed for contraventions of the ACL. Further, its application and utility must be tailored to the circumstances. In some cases, the contravening conduct may involve many acts of contravention that affect a very large number of consumers and a large monetary value of commerce, but the conduct might be characterised as involving a single course of conduct. Contrastingly, in other cases, there may be a small number of contraventions, affecting few consumers and having small commercial significance, but the conduct might be characterised as involving several separate courses of conduct. It might be anomalous to apply the concept to the former scenario, yet be precluded from applying it to the latter scenario.
In Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales v Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited (2006) 151 IR 153; [2006] NSWIRComm 71 ("AWU v BlueScope [2006]"), the Full Bench (Wright J, President, Walton J Vice-President, and Marks J) held that the primary judge at first instance made two errors in his approach to the assessment of penalties in two respects. The Full Bench held at 170 [68]: First, rather than imposing a single penalty for each day on which the dispute orders were breached, his Honour treated the obligations in the dispute orders as separate orders, and determined separate penalties for each contravention, resulting in the imposition of multiple penalties for contraventions which occurred on a single day. … Second, his Honour incorrectly assessed separate penalties for the contravention of separate obligations within the dispute orders, rather than for the single, ongoing contravention of the dispute orders, resulting in the maximum penalty of $10,000 (being the maximum penalty applicable for the first day of a contravention) being applied more than once.
The Full Bench held that separate paragraphs, or separate obligations, in a dispute order should not be treated as separate orders for the purposes of the statutory maxima prescribed in s 139(4)(a) of the Act. The Full Bench stated at 169 [61]: The exercise of power by the Commission under s 137(1)(a) to make dispute orders includes the power to make ancillary orders. Such ancillary orders do not constitute separate dispute orders (for which separate penalties may be imposed in the event of breach) but remain part of the single exercise of power under s 137(1) of the Act (see [Bluescope Steel Ltd (formerly BHP Steel Ltd) v Australian Workers Union (NSW) (2004) 137 IR 176] at [34]-[36]). To interpret Pt 2 of Ch 3 any other way would be incongruous: the number of obligations imposed on an organisation or employer, and therefore the extent of exposure to penalty, would be entirely dependant on the manner and style in which the orders were drafted. For instance, a dispute order may impose obligations with respect to organising, inciting and encouraging industrial action either as a single obligation or as separate obligations. The manner in which the dispute order is constructed would, if separate obligations are treated as separate dispute orders, have significant implications when determining the maximum penalty to be applied pursuant to s 139(4) in the event of a breach.
The Full Bench held at 170 [64]-[65]: [64] His Honour's approach was incorrect for a number of reasons. First, as a matter of statutory construction, there was only one contravention for which one penalty is available, arising from one incident of industrial action. [65] Second, as a matter of substance, there is no difference between Orders 1, 2 and 3 of the amended dispute orders. Orders 2 and 3 are facilitative and do not create new obligations. We do not consider that the ancillary or facilitative orders have a different quality to the "cease and refrain" order, although a contravention may be established by a failure to take those steps even if a breach of the primary obligation is not made out.
In Education Secretary v AEU [2022], I reviewed the decision of the Full Bench and made the following observations at [298]: (1) The judgment under appeal concerned proceedings for the contravention of orders made by the Commission (the first and amended orders) which were made in the context of a strike of a section of the workforce at the Port Kembla steel workers which was actually occurring at the time of the industrial dispute proceedings. Hence, unlike the present matter, orders were made to "cease and refrain and immediately cease and refrain" from the taking of industrial action in contrast to "cease organising and refrain from taking industrial action", as found in Order A1 in this matter and the Order A1 which was under consideration in PSA (No 1), PSA (No 2) and Industrial Relations Secretary (although in those matters the Commission also ordered the Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales ("PSA") not to "take further industrial action"). (2) Thus, the orders made in Bluescope were also couched in terms of requiring the industrial organisation to take steps to bring about the cessation and to ensuring there was not a resumption. (3) One of the issues addressed by the Full Court was whether it was appropriate, in the circumstances, to penalise the industrial organisation on the same day of the contravention for both the strike itself, aiding and abetting the strike or taking necessary steps for its prevention and failing to take steps to, inter alia, convene meetings and direct compliance with the amended order to cease industrial action without any apparent allowance for concurrence between the contraventions. (4) The essential issue was whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to treat both of those acts (if proven) of constituting separate contraventions. (5) In substance, the Industrial Court treated the conduct of industrial organisations and described the breach of "ancillary orders" as part of a single course of conduct with the strike or manifestations of the strike are also in breach of the order, although the Court treated each separate day of the strike as a separate contravention, no doubt because of the form of orders made by the Commission. …
In PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018], Bathurst CJ (with whom Gleeson and Simpson JJA agreed) found, in relation to the contravention of a dispute order directed at a 24-hour strike (albeit over two days) that embraced conduct occurring over a number of days before the strike as follows. His Honour stated at 794 [149]: The primary judge, in my opinion, was correct in treating what occurred as a single contravention of the dispute orders made by the Commission. Section 139(4)(b) of the IR Act envisages a contravention occurring on more than one day. Here, there was a single course of conduct which occurred over a period of 14 days. [Emphasis added.]

[67]

Consideration

In my view, there is a legal and factual relationship between pleaded contraventions C to I in these proceedings such that the conduct amounted to one course of conduct and thus one contravention.
There was a legal relationship because the contraventions stemmed from the same orders made by the Commission.
There was a factual relationship too. The prosecutor was correct to point out that PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] involved identical conduct each day. But I do not accept that the course of conduct principle applies only where there is identical conduct. The focus in the authorities cited above are to the quality or character of the dispute orders and the acts of the defendant.
Although it has been suggested that each Branch conducted their own meetings and votes, and there was some variation as to the length of the strike between the different locations, it is plain from all the evidence that each Branch and each notice to the prosecutor was through a coordinated effort to strike for a 24-hour period between 7:00am on 31 March 2022 to 7:00am on 1 April 2022. The evidence shows that the actions by the defendant, its officers, employees and members was geared towards that coordinated strike action.
It could not be said that each Branch or member of the defendant was acting alone with a separate "mind". The defendant was acting as one when it organised the industrial action. I take on judicial notice that organising an effective mass strike generally requires a concerted effort by numerous individuals and over a period of time.
Although the notices were sent on different days by different officers and members of the defendant, this does not detract from the fact that each notice was interlinked, directed at the same person (that is, the Secretary or her representatives) and were directed to the same end - to organise and facilitate industrial action.
It follows, in my view, that the approach adopted by Bathurst CJ in PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] at 794 [149] should be applied with respect to contraventions of orders A1 and A2 in pleaded contraventions C to I. There was a single contravention of the dispute orders made in that respect by the Commission requiring, in general terms, the defendant to cease organising and continuing to induce, authorise, direct or encourage the strike scheduled for 31 March 2022.
Section 139(4)(a) of the Act envisages a contravention occurring on more than one day. Here there was a single course of conduct which occurred over a period of 7 days corresponding with the actions or conduct in pleaded contraventions C to I.

[69]

Submissions of the Prosecutor

The prosecutor submitted that the contraventions were undertaken in blatant and deliberate defiance of the dispute orders made by the Commission. The executive of the defendant took a conscious decision in the face of the dispute orders to proceed with the strikes. The conduct of the defendant was not passive (cf PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] at 794-795 [155]) in the sense that its messages to its members, media outlets and Facebook posts was that the strike will go on and encouraged its members to strike in the face of the dispute orders.
As to the impact of the strikes, the prosecutor relied on the following evidence: 1. Affidavit of Leanne Johnson affirmed 6 May 2022 ("Johnson Affidavit"). Ms Johnson is the Executive General Manager at John Hunter Hospital, within the Hunter New England LHD ("HNELHD") and was previously the General Manager, Mental Health Services in the HNELHD for just over years; 2. Affidavit of Jennifer Ann Fitzsimons affirmed on 6 May 2022 ("First Fitzsimons Affidavit"). Ms Fitzsimons is the Associate Director, Professional Practice and Strategy, Nursing and Midwifery Service at Western Sydney LHD ("WSLHD") and is a qualified registered nurse; and 3. Affidavit of Jennifer Ann Fitzsimons affirmed 20 May 2022 ("Second Fitzsimons Affidavit").
The prosecutor drew the Court's attention to the High Court's recent decision in Pattinson. Counsel for the prosecutor submitted that Pattinson is authority for the proposition that the conduct does not need to be of the worst kind in order for this Court to impose a "high range" penalty. In determining the appropriate penalty, this Court needs to strike a balance "between not being oppressively severe and ensuring that the penalty such [that] it deters future noncompliant or contraventions, [and] both specific and general deterrence".
The prosecutor emphasised that general deterrence is of particular importance in cases where dispute orders made by the Commission are disregarded in knowing and deliberate defiance. If the Commission's authority is to be upheld, then participants in the industrial relations system who gain the benefits of that system must face a sufficient deterrent against simply disregarding orders which are lawfully made.
The prosecutor also submitted that there is the need for specific deterrence. The evidence shows that the defendant is ready and willing to press ahead with industrial action despite dispute orders made by the Commission to achieve their purposes. It has also given no sign it will refrain in the future from contravening dispute orders. The defendant has not expressed remorse or contrition. There are no other features which would reduce the penalty, such as the dispute no longer being live, or the union's executive being instrumental in settlement of the dispute.
The prosecutor submitted that the contraventions for organising fall "at least in the middle range of seriousness" and the contraventions for "actually engaging in the strike itself" should be at the "high end of seriousness and should attract close to the maximum penalty".
In relation to the defendant's lack of prior contravening conduct, counsel for the prosecutor submitted that that very factor is already taken into account in terms of s 139(4) of the Act because that provision provides an increased maximum penalty if there had been contraventions of earlier dispute orders. Thus, the lack of past contravening conduct is "already built-in" into the maximum penalty that can be imposed. Therefore, the absence of a prior record is not a factor in mitigation but rather "it's the absence of a matter in aggravation".
The written submissions of the prosecutor included a table setting out the "minimum appropriate penalty" for each pleaded contravention. The prosecutor's table was on the assumption that each pleaded contravention was a separate contravention. The total amount for the "minimum appropriate penalty" was $85,000. The prosecutor submitted that "after having regard to the principle of totality, the appropriate penalty should be, at a minimum, in the range of $60,000 - $70,000".
Given that I have found that only pleaded contraventions C to I are established, on the prosecutor's case, the total amount for the "minimum appropriate penalty" for those contraventions was $35,000.

[70]

Submissions of the Defendant

The defendant submitted that the each of the strikes on 15 February and 31 March 2022 was of relatively short duration (24 hours) and was scheduled in advance, permitting contingencies to be arranged and implemented. This is not a case in which a union sprung industrial action upon an employer to cause maximum disruption and damage. The instant case is not in the worst category of case of contravention of a dispute order is likely to involve lengthy industrial action or action of a wildcat nature taken on each day the dispute order is in force and designed to inflict maximum damage on, or disruption to, the operations of government.
The defendant relied on a communication published by the Secretary that the strike action "caused minor disruptions and delays". It was accepted that the strikes caused a level of inconvenience and disruption. Given the protracted period the defendant submitted that the prosecutor had time to plan for it and was able to be effectively managed. There was some 11 days' notice of the 15 February 2022 strike and some 14 days' notice of the 31 March 2022 strike. The defendant contended that it was not available for the prosecutor to contend that the strikes caused the community, patients and staff to be at risk.
The defendant sought to expose weaknesses in the prosecutor's evidence. Counsel for the defendant noted that there is no evidence as to the number of nurses or midwives who participated in the strike, except in relation to the John Hunter Hospital on 15 February 2022; that the prosecutor's evidence of disruption related only to John Hunter and Westmead Hospitals; and, there is no evidence that the health of any particular patient or patients were put at risk.
The defendant accepted that it consciously disobeyed the Commission's orders to cease organising the strikes. However, the defendant submitted that any contravention of a dispute order is likely to be deliberate and will almost invariably be conscious. It was contended that Parliament can be assumed to have taken this into account when setting the maximum penalties and cannot have intended all cases where there were deliberate contraventions to be in the worst category.
The defendant submitted that Pattinson, when read properly, requires a focus on the particular kind of contravention and the need for a deterrent penalty is shaped by the particular contravention. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the Association is not a contravener akin to the CFMMEU and the conduct in this case were "uncharacteristic aberrations which were the product of a particular situation and the circumstances experienced by nurses and midwives presently and following the COVID-19 pandemic".
The defendant has never breached a dispute order before and the contraventions are an "uncharacteristic aberration" in the "extensive and unblemished history of compliance" by the Association. Counsel stated that the defendant had a 91 year history of "impeccable industrial behaviour" and "unimpeachable industrial conduct". The defendant accepted that some weight should be given to specific and general deterrence but it must be small at most.
Overall, the defendant submitted that penalties for the contraventions should be at the lower end of the range.

[71]

The Deliberateness of the Defendant's Conduct is a Relevant Factor in Determining the Appropriate Penalty

The argument advanced by counsel for the defendant - that any contravention of a dispute order was likely to be deliberate and that Parliament can be assumed to have taken that into account in assessing the maximum penalty - was also made by the appellant in PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] at 792 [138].
In that case, Bathurst CJ (with whom Gleeson and Simpson JJA agreed) emphasised that, whilst it is true that most contraventions will be deliberate, this does not detract from consideration of the facts of each case. Bathurst CJ noted that the appellant union's bulletin had publicly indicated its intention to ignore the dispute orders by being prepared to "cop a fine", urged its members to strike in the face of the dispute orders, and continually failed to take down the Flyer and the Bulletin after Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2017] was delivered.
A similar argument was also advanced in Education Secretary v AEU [2022] at [362]. At [363]-[364], I explained: [363] It is true that, in most cases, contraventions of dispute orders will be deliberate in the sense they are done consciously and intentionally but here, as the Chief Justice described in Industrial Relations Secretary (at [156]), the Court is concerned with a deliberate and calculated defiance of the orders of the Commission. [364] The submission by the Federation, in this respect, also overlooks the range of conduct that may be associated with contraventions. The circumstances described in the Bluescope matter, that has been much discussed in this judgment, involved the Union Secretary endeavouring to persuade his members not to engage in industrial action, albeit, failing to give a direction to cease such action. At the other end of the spectrum of defiance of orders of the Commission, is conduct which is wanton and deliberately designed to be disruptive or damaging.
In my view, not every contravention of a dispute order is necessarily a deliberate one. Deliberateness or intention is not an element of a contravention and an honest and reasonable mistake of fact is not a defence to an alleged contravention. BlueScope (No 3) [2006], which is set out above, is an example where a union had contravened the orders but had a genuine and honest belief that dispute orders did not apply to the industrial action that it undertook. Boland J (as his Honour then was) nevertheless found that there was a contravention and proceeded to dismiss the matter under s 139(3)(a) of the Act given the circumstances.
I respectfully agree with Bathurst CJ that most contraventions would be deliberate. Industrial organisations and employers are generally sophisticated industrial participants who would understand that the making of a dispute order is a serious step and are bound to take it seriously: Director-General, NSW Department of Education and Training v NSW Teachers Federation [2010] NSWIRComm 44 at [37(d)] (Staff J) ("Education Director-General v NSWTF [2010] NSWIRComm 44").
In my view, not all cases of deliberate contraventions should attract the maximum penalty. That much is clear from BlueScope (No 2) [2005], PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] and Education Secretary v AEU [2022] where the relevant unions were found to have deliberately contravened the orders. As I explained in Education Secretary v AEU [2022] at [364], deliberateness is one relevant factor but it is important that this Court does not lose sight of the range of conduct that could be regulated by a dispute order ranges from a wild-cat action on one end and conduct which is wanton, encouraging open defiance of the Commission's orders and deliberately designed to inflict the maximum possible hardship on the other end.

[72]

The Application of ABCC v Pattinson

Before turning to the relevant factors, I will consider the myriad of issues raised by the parties. The first issue how this Court should apply the High Court's decision of Pattinson which was delivered earlier this year after Education Secretary v AEU [2022] was handed down.
The first respondent, Mr Pattinson, wore many hats. He was an employee of Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd, an officer of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union ("CFMMEU") and its delegate on its building site in Frankston, Victoria.
Mr Pattinson followed the union's "no ticket, no start" policy and misrepresented to two non-union employees of a subcontractor that in order to do their work at the site they had to become members of the union. Those actions twice contravened s 349(1) of the Fair Work Act. As he acted in his capacity as delegate, the CFMMEU contravened that provision too: Fair Work Act s 363.
The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner brought civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court. Pursuant to s 546 of the Fair Work Act, Snaden J imposed a penalty of $6000 on the delegate (or $3000 for each contravention). Having regard to the union's longstanding history of breaches of the Fair Work Act in furtherance of the "no ticket, no start" policy, the Court imposed on the CFMMEU a single maximum penalty of $63,000 for such breaches (or $31,500 for each contravention): see Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson (2019) 291 IR 286; [2019] FCA 1654 at 316-317 [115]-[118], 319 [128].
The Full Court of the Federal Court allowed an appeal brought by Mr Pattinson and the union. The Full Court held that the history of the CFMMEU's prior contraventions and the deterrent purpose of s 546 did not warrant the imposition of a penalty that was disproportionate to the nature, gravity and seriousness of the circumstances of the instant contraventions: Pattinson v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (2020) 282 FCR 580; [2020] FCAFC 177 at 642-643 [180]-[181] (Allsop CJ, White and Wigney JJ, with whom Besanko and Bromwich JJ agreed) ("Pattinson (FCAFC)").
The Full Court endorsed a view that the "maximum penalty is reserved for contraventions falling within the worst category of cases for which that penalty is prescribed" and that "a case is not in the worst category merely by reason that the contravener has a history of prior contraventions, although that history may assist in the proper characterisation of the instant contravention": Pattinson (FCAFC) at 636 [160]-[161] (Allsop CJ, White and Wigney JJ), see also 655-656 [227], 656-657 [231] (Besanko and Bromwich JJ). Thus, the Full Court considered that the primary judge had erred in imposing on the CFMMEU what was, in effect, the maximum penalty, which the Full Court considered ought to be reserved for the most serious examples of conduct in contravention of s 349(1) of the Fair Work Act.
The High Court allowed an appeal from the Full Court's decision. The majority (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Steward and Gleeson JJ) distinguished between criminal penalties, which import notions of retribution and rehabilitation, and civil penalties, which are imposed primarily, if not solely, for the purpose of deterrence: at 308-309 [15]-[16]. The majority accepted the view that "a civil penalty…must be fixed with a view to ensuring that the penalty is not such as to be regarded by [the] offender or others as an acceptable cost of doing business": at 309 [17].
The majority held that the notion of proportionality in criminal law - that a sentence should neither exceed nor be less than the gravity of the crime having regard to the objective circumstances (R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 152 at [15] (Howie J, with whom Grove and Barr JJ agreed); R v Rayment (2010) 200 A Crim R 48; [2010] NSWCCA 85 at 69 [110] (Johnson J), 79 [156] (Rothman J)) - is not applicable in the civil penalty context because retribution has no part to play: Pattinson at 315 [38]-[39].
The majority stated at 316 [40]-[41] that: [40] … The discretion conferred by s 546 is, like any discretionary power conferred by statute on a court, to be exercised judicially, that is, fairly and reasonably having regard to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the legislation. In a civil penalty context, Burchett and Kiefel JJ in NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [(1996) 71 FCR 285 at 293] said: [I]nsistence upon the deterrent quality of a penalty should be balanced by insistence that it "not be so high as to be oppressive". Plainly, if deterrence is the object, the penalty should not be greater than is necessary to achieve this object; severity beyond that would be oppression. [41] It may therefore be accepted that s 546 requires the court to ensure that the penalty it imposes is "proportionate", where that term is understood to refer to a penalty that strikes a reasonable balance between deterrence and oppressive severity.
The majority recognised that some concepts familiar from criminal sentencing, such as totality, parity and course of conduct, may usefully be deployed in the enforcement of the civil penalty regime and assist in the assessment of what may be considered reasonably necessary to deter further contraventions of the Act: at 317 [45].
The majority held that the Full Court erred in treating the statutory maximum as implicitly requiring that contraventions be graded on a scale of increasing seriousness with the maximum to be reserved exclusively for the worst category of contravening conduct: at 318 [49]. Their Honours stated at 318 [50]: Considerations of deterrence, and the protection of the public interest, justify the imposition of the maximum penalty where it is apparent that no lesser penalty will be an effective deterrent against further contraventions of a like kind. Where a contravention is an example of adherence to a strategy of choosing to pay a penalty in preference to obeying the law, the court may reasonably fix a penalty at the maximum set by statute with a view to making continued adherence to that strategy in the ongoing conduct of the contravenor's affairs as unattractive as it is open to the court reasonably to do.
The holding in Pattinson relating to the purpose and considerations for civil penalties were not limited to civil penalties in the Fair Work Act. The statements of the High Court were recently applied by the Full Court of the Federal Court on civil penalty proceedings for contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law: viagogo AG v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2022] FCAFC 87 at [129]-[130] (Yates, Abraham and Cheeseman JJ).
A few observations should be made in relation to Pattinson and its application to proceedings under s 139 of the Act.
First, although the majority's judgment was expressed broadly, their Honours nevertheless emphasised that their decision based on the features of the Act in that case, that is, the Fair Work Act: see, eg, at 322 [66]. The civil penalty provisions in s 546 of that Act have a "statutory function of securing compliance with provisions of the [statutory] regime": Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (2015) 258 CLR 482; [2015] HCA 46 at 495 [24] (French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Nettle and Gordon JJ, as Kiefel CJ then was) ("Commonwealth v FWBII"). In this respect, the purpose of civil penalties in s 546 of the Fair Work Act and s 139 of the NSW Act are distinguishable. Although securing compliance with orders of the Commission is an important purpose, the latter regime also serves the important purpose of helping to resolve the industrial dispute between the parties and promoting the system of conciliation and arbitration established by the Act.
This can be seen in two respects. The first is in the decision of Fagan J in Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2017] when his Honour, after surveying the legislative history of s 139 of the Act, considered the powers of the former Industrial Court and, now, this Court under s 139(3)(f) of the Act to help resolve an industrial dispute. His Honour stated at 731 [37] as follows: One can envisage that there would be determinations according to the ordinary sense of the word that could be made by the Industrial Court (and now by the Supreme Court) which might "help in resolving the industrial dispute", as envisaged by par (f) of s 139(3). For example, in a demarcation dispute it might be that if orders had been made by a commissioner and were contravened, there might be some assistance given to resolving a dispute if the Industrial Court (in former times) and, now, the Supreme Court should make a determination as to where the demarcation line should be drawn, and to what industrial organisation employees in particular categories should belong.
The second is the observation by Haylen J in Bluescope Steel Ltd v The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales [2006] NSWIRComm 338 at [40] that it is some relevance to consider whether the industrial dispute continues to be or is no longer a "live issue" that calls for the Court's intervention to restore industrial order. This was cited approvingly by Staff J in Education Director-General v NSWTF [2010] NSWIRComm 44 at [40]. Staff J observed that, had the parties not settled the industrial dispute in that case, the Court "would have been disposed to impose a significantly higher penalty" to specifically deter further industrial action as a means of dispute resolution: at [41].
Hence, the "theory of s 546 of the [Fair Work Act]" - that "the financial disincentive involved in the imposition of pecuniary penalty will encourage compliance with the law by ensuring that contraventions are viewed by the contravener and others as an economically irrational choice" (at 322 [66]) - is not identical to the "theory" of s 139 of the NSW Act.
As deterrence is not the sole object of s 139 of the Act, it follows that the focus on striking a balance between deterrence and oppressive severity is not entirely apt for determining penalties under s 139(3)(e) of the Act. That is not to say that deterrence is other than an important factor. As I will elaborate further, it remains a strong and significant factor in determining the appropriate penalty. In any case, for the reasons given below, the penalty imposed will apply the full force of general deterrence.
Secondly, there is a tension with the reference to the "cost of doing business" in Pattinson with s 139 of the Act. The concept of the "cost of doing business" is very understandable in the context of competition and consumer law where, for example, the advantage to be gained from engaging in unlawful anti-competitive behaviour or making misleading and deceptive statements can be clearly seen. It can also be discerned in the facts of Pattinson where the union dues collected from the implementation of a "no ticket, no start" policy can be estimated. But it becomes more difficult for a court to calculate the "cost" or gains, in a monetary amount, from organising or taking industrial action in support of a claim for conditions of employment for its members. The prosecutor did not suggest how this should be calculated or considered in these proceedings.
The majority in Pattinson appears to suggest that one needs to look at whether the penalties previously imposed have been taken seriously. It was noted that the CFMMEU's repeated breaches of the Act is a "compelling indication" that past penalties below the maximum penalty were insufficient to outweigh the benefits flowing from their unlawful conduct: at 316-317 [43]. However, given the rarity of proceedings under s 139 of the NSW Act (this being the third case to reach final disposition since this Court gained the jurisdiction in 2016, and each case has involved a different defendant), it would appear that industrial participants who have been subject to penalties from this Court have taken those penalties seriously.
Nevertheless, the essence of the High Court's concern, which is to uphold the rule of law, has been reflected in the approach of the former Industrial Court and this Court in proceedings under s 139 of the Act, albeit under a different colour to that in the Fair Work Act. The penalties need to fulfil the function of upholding the industrial relations system set up by the Act and vindicating the authority and integrity of the Commission as an essential component of that legal system. This can be seen in Education Secretary v AEU [2022] at [385] (Walton J), Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2017] at 733-734 [49] (Fagan J), and Education Director-General v NSWTF [2000] NSWIRComm 103 at [7] (Marks J). To be clear, a dispute order is a manifestation of the authority of the Commission whose orders, awards and determinations have the force of law. This reflects the will of the Parliament.
Thirdly, in many other ways, the approach of this Court and the former Industrial Court in contravention proceedings is consistent with Pattinson. Deterrence has consistently been held to be a very important feature of the fixing of civil penalties by the Full Bench of the former Industrial Court: BlueScope (No 2) [2005] at 330 [4(5)] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Marks J).
However, it has also been recognised that the need for deterrence should also be assessed. The majority in Pattinson noted the previous penalties to failed to have any deterrent effect on the CFMMEU and characterised its repeated contraventions as being "steadfastly resistant to previous attempts to enforce compliance by civil penalties fixed at less than the permitted maximum": at 316 [43]. In those circumstances, the need for general and specific deterrence is very high. On the other end, however, where contraventions of dispute orders are "almost non-existent", any element for general deterrence can be less: Bluescope Steel (AIS) Ltd v AWU and Anor (No 2) [2005] NSWIRComm 210 at [53] (Boland J, as his Honour then was) ("BlueScope v AWU [2005] NSWIRComm 210").
Lastly, the majority in Pattinson at 318 [46]-[47] stated: [46] … A contravention may be a "one-off" result of inadvertence by the contravenor rather than the latest instance of the contravenor's pursuit of a strategy of deliberate recalcitrance in order to have its way. There may also be cases, for example, where a contravention has occurred through ignorance of the law on the part of a union official, or where the official responsible for a deliberate breach has been disciplined by the union. In such cases, a modest penalty, if any, may reasonably be thought to be sufficient to provide effective deterrence against further contraventions. [47] The penalty that is appropriate to protect the public interest by deterring future contraventions of the Act may also be moderated by taking into account other factors of the kind adverted to by French J in [Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-076]. For example, where those responsible for a contravention of the Act express genuine remorse for the contravention, it might be considered appropriate to impose only a moderate penalty because no more would be necessary to incentivise the contravenors to remain mindful of their remorse and their public expressions of that remorse to the court. Similarly, where the occasion in which a contravention occurred is unlikely to arise in the future because of changes in the membership of an industrial organisation, a modest penalty may be appropriate having regard to the reduced risk of future contraventions
Notwithstanding the primacy placed on deterrence, the High Court's reasoning in the passage above took into account factors historically associated with assessing the objective seriousness of the breach. Counsel for the prosecutor accepted that objective seriousness is a relevant factor in determining the appropriate penalty. That concession was appropriate because of the scheme of the Act which emphasises maintaining good industrial relations. This passage also appears to provide support for the proposition that general deterrence may vary in its significance to penalty depending on the circumstances of the case. It remains important and necessary to consider factors such as the history of contraventions and compliance, the nature and extent of the contravening conduct, and whether there has been any remorse.

[73]

The Defendant's Lack of Prior Contraventions can be Considered as a Mitigating Factor

Counsel for the prosecutor submitted that it is impermissible to consider the defendant's lack of prior contraventions of dispute orders as a mitigating factor because it is "built-in" into the maximum penalty and considering that factor would amount to double counting. It appears from the prosecutor's submission that, if there has been no prior contravention of a dispute order, then this can not be a factor in mitigation and the maximum penalty in s 139(4)(a) of the Act applies because the lack of prior contravention is "built-in". However, if there has been a prior contravention, not only does the maximum penalty in s 139(4)(b) of the Act would apply, but it can also be a factor in aggravation.
That submission only needs to be stated to be rejected. All that s 139(4) of the Act does is set the maximum penalty. It does not create, to borrow a term used in criminal law, a separate "aggravating offence" that has, as an element, a prior contravention of a dispute order. The maximum penalties in s 139(4) of the Act are a mere guidepost or yardstick. It does not amount to double counting or a breach of the rule in R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 (assuming that such a rule applies in the civil penalty context) for the defendant's clean prior record to be considered as a mitigating factor in assessing the appropriate penalty.
As Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson and Toohey JJ (as Brennan CJ then was) stated in Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 ("Veen (No 2)") at 477, a prior record is relevant in criminal sentencing "to show whether the instant offence is an uncharacteristic aberration or whether the offender has manifested in his commission of the instant offence a continuing attitude of disobedience of the law". That principle in Veen (No 2) is of relevance to proceedings under s 139 of the Act because the prior record of an industrial organisation or employer is relevant to the assessment of the likelihood of contravening dispute orders in the future and the subjective features of the contravention.

[74]

This Court can take Judicial Notice of Matters of Common Knowledge in the Industrial Context

The past record of the Commission is relevant in determining the appropriate penalty: Public Service Board v NSW Teachers Federation [1969] AR (NSW) 21 (MoKeon, Kelleher and Sheehy JJ) ("PSB v NSWTF") and the cases cited therein. In Australian Iron & Steel Ltd v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1959] AR (NSW) 329, it was stated that "[a] good record tells in favour of a union. A bad record tells against a union": at 334 (Richards, McKeon and Kelleher JJ). In proceedings under s 139 of the Act, the culture of the contravener as to compliance or contravention was a relevant factor: Education Secretary v AEU [2022] at [208(7)] (Walton J); see also Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (the Non-Indemnification Personal Payment Case) (2018) 264 FCR 155; [2018] FCAFC 97 at [20] (Allsop CJ, White and O'Callaghan JJ).
At the hearing, I raised with counsel for the prosecutor whether I could take judicial notice about the industrial behaviour and record of the defendant in this State. It was stated at the hearing: HIS HONOUR: So I should not take judicial notice of the circumstances of the behaviour of the Nurses Association over a period of time[?] That's a question, by the way, and not a rhetorical one. [BULUT]: Yes, your Honour. Your Honour, in my submission, that is not a matter for judicial notice. Perhaps your Honour is placed to make certain observations because of your Honour's experience and prior position. However, we say it's not a matter for judicial notice proper. That's a matter for evidence.
An issue that needs to be considered is the extent to which this Court can take judicial notice of matters of common knowledge within the industrial context. Section 144 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) provides: 144 Matters of common knowledge (1) Proof is not required about knowledge that is not reasonably open to question and is - (a) common knowledge in the locality in which the proceeding is being held or generally, or (b) capable of verification by reference to a document the authority of which cannot reasonably be questioned. (2) The judge may acquire knowledge of that kind in any way the judge thinks fit. (3) The court (including, if there is a jury, the jury) is to take knowledge of that kind into account. (4) The judge is to give a party such opportunity to make submissions, and to refer to relevant information, relating to the acquiring or taking into account of knowledge of that kind as is necessary to ensure that the party is not unfairly prejudiced.
Historically, the Commission, when that body had the power to deal with an illegal strike under s 100 of the 1940 Act, had the power to call for a report from the Industrial Registrar as to the union's industrial record: see, eg, PSB v NSWTF. To my knowledge, the power to seek a report has not been utilised by the Commission or the former Industrial Court in recent history, except in the case of deregistration proceedings (see, eg, Re Printing and Allied Trades Employers Association of New South Wales [2014] NSWIC 6 at [2] (Boland AJ)).
The Industrial Court and Commission in Court Session under the 1991 Act and 1996 Act, respectively, were specialist industrial courts "established primarily to deal with matters relating to industrial relations": Wood v Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, No 4980 of 1992, 28 October 1993) ("Wood v Boral"), cited approvingly in Resarta Pty Ltd v Finemore (2002) 55 NSWLR 320; [2002] NSWCA 250 at 337-338 [75]-[76] (Foster AJA with whom Spigelman CJ and Giles JA agreed); see also Taudevin at 172 [138] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Hungerford J).
In Wood v Boral, McClelland CJ in Eq noted that the specialised nature of the Industrial Court, the major industrial features of proceedings brought before it, the broad criterion of public interest in the Act and the wide discretionary powers given to that Court required that the Court's powers be exercised by "members who had specialised knowledge and experience in the area of industrial relations".
The specialised expertise of the members of the Industrial Court made that Court well-equipped to readily consider the industrial record and conduct of the union or employer. It followed from its creation as a specialist court, of which employers, unions and associations regularly appeared, that the Judges of that Court were well-equipped to take on judicial notice matters of common knowledge in the industrial context. This notion was accepted in Totalisator Agency Board of New South Wales v Casey (1994) 54 IR 354 concerning the Government and Related Employees' Tribunal. Kirby P (as his Honour then was) stated at 357 that: Normally a tribunal should be constituted by a person who brings commonsense and everyday experience to bear upon the decision but no relevant inside information about the event in question. By adopting the tripartite structure, it was clearly intended that general knowledge as to practice and conventions within the employment of the employee and employer would be pooled. To that extent, the composition of the Tribunal would extend the permissible range of "judicial notice". It would allow the Tribunal to have available to its decision-makers the practical experience and industrial wisdom of the employers' and employees' representatives on the Tribunal. This is a sensible procedure which has worked well in this State, so far as one can see, for more than 50 years.
In R v Industrial Appeals Court; Ex parte Maher [1978] VR 126, it was held that a lay member of the Industrial Appeals Court of Victoria is entitled to draw on their industrial experience to understand the arguments and matters before the Court: at 143 (Starke, McInerney and Crockett JJ). However, the member may not assert from their experience the existence of some particular fact without disclosing their own particular knowledge and giving the parties the opportunity to put arguments or call evidence concerning it.
It was never in doubt that the Commission and the former Industrial Court, and its predecessor bodies, were entitled to take on judicial notice matters well-known or common knowledge in the industrial context, including the conduct of employers and unions, by drawing on their general knowledge and experience and use it in resolving matters before it: see, eg, Richens v Tresilian & Dun (1993) 32 NSWLR 301 at 312 (Hungerford J); Brooks v Upper Hunter County Council [1973] AR (NSW) 90 (McKeon J); Blacktown Workers Club Ltd v Harris (1999) 93 IR 226 at 236 [41] (Industrial Registrar Robertson). This occurred with such regularity that "it goes without saying" that the Industrial Court could take on judicial notice matters of common knowledge in the industrial context. For example, in Treasury Secretary v PSA (No 2) [2013], the President, Boland J, observed that the Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales "has a good record in terms of industrial behaviour over a very long period of time" and was "a good industrial citizen": at 359 [50], 360 [52]. This was because the Judges of the former Industrial Court, who also held office as Deputy Presidents of the Commission, were steeped in knowledge of industrial affairs and the conduct of industrial participants in both the Commission and the Court.
The question of whether this Court, when dealing with industrial proceedings under the Act or other industrial legislation, may consider matters well-known in the industrial context should be resolved by considering the legislative intent of the 2016 Amendment Act. That Act abolished the Industrial Court and transferred most of its functions to this Court.
In my view, Parliament intended that the substantive law and practice of the former Industrial Court would continue in the Supreme Court. This is clear from the special provisions inserted in Ch 6A of the Act, which had the effect of applying the practices of the Industrial Court to this Court in dealing with industrial proceedings. There are five indicia in Ch 6A, which were all inserted by the 2016 Amendment Act, that are of particular significance in their application to industrial proceedings (as that term is defined in s 355A of the Act).
First, s 355E(1) of the Act applies ss 167 (relating to intervention by Minister, Anti-Discrimination Board and State peak council), 169(1)-(3) (for anti-discrimination matters) and s 181A (the obligation to disclose costs to clients and Commission) to proceedings of this Court. Those provisions had previously applied to the Industrial Court.
Secondly, s 355E(2) of the Act adopted text that is substantially identical to s 146(2) of the Act, which now only applies to the Commission, but, before the 2016 Amendment Act, also applied to the Industrial Court. This provides the mandatory considerations that the Court is to have regard to.
Thirdly, s 355E(3) of the Act adopted the practice of the Industrial Court, then under s 181 of the Act, to not award costs for certain industrial proceedings.
Fourthly, s 355E(4) of the Act allows this Court to grant leave for a party to be represented by an agent who is not an Australian legal practitioner if it considers it appropriate to do so. This was similar to the operation of the Industrial Court under s 166 of the Act, as it then operated, that allowed non-lawyers and industrial officers to represent parties.
Fifthly, s 355C of the Act gives this Court the power to make binding declarations of right that s 154 of Act, as it then operated, had empowered the Industrial Court to make: Health Services Union NSW v Health Secretary [2017] NSWSC 1661 at [1] (Schmidt J). This complements, but does not detract from, the wide grant of jurisdiction available in this Court to grant declaratory or other relief under ss 23 and 75 of the Supreme Court Act: Fakhouri v Secretary for the NSW Ministry of Health [2022] NSWSC 233 at [25]-[27] (Beech-Jones CJ at CL).
Further, the procedural rules of the former Industrial Court have also largely been adopted in this Court. There, of course, have been small, but immaterial, exceptions. One example is the initiating process for proceedings for an order under s 106 of the Act was by a summons in the former Industrial Court (Industrial Relations Commission Rules 2009 (NSW) r 13.2) but is by a statement of claim in this Court (UCPR r 6.3(i)): Sutton v BE Australia WD Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 689 at [43]-[44] (Walton J).
Overall, these provisions, in my view, support the view that the Parliament of New South Wales had not intended to effectuate a substantive change in law and practice (except when expressly identified) and sought to preserve in this Court, as far as possible, the functions, procedure and practice of the former Industrial Court.
This view is confirmed by the extrinsic material. The second reading speech by the then-Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Multiculturalism, the Hon John Ajaka, for the Industrial Relations Amendment (Industrial Court) Bill 2016 (NSW) (New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 21 September 2016 at page 12) stated that: The case for change is due to the reduction in workload[.] The decision to integrate the Industrial Court with the Supreme Court has been made in response to the significant reduction in the workload of the Industrial Court over recent years. … This bill recognises that the judicial functions performed by the Industrial Court are important and must be performed, but that the resources devoted to those functions need to be managed differently so as to be more effective. … Integrating the Industrial Court with the Supreme Court will allow existing Supreme Court judges to hear matters as demand requires. There will be efficiencies of scale associated with handling matters under the larger jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This will benefit parties through increasing the capacity of the court to attend to urgent industrial matters. With only one judge currently available to hear matters in the Industrial Court, parties could be significantly delayed in seeking the assistance of the court if the current president, and the only judicial member, is occupied with a lengthy hearing. By contrast, the Supreme Court will be able to urgently allocate judicial resources to matters as required from a larger pool of judges.
The second reading speech demonstrates that the mischief behind the 2016 Amendment Act was to address the declining workload of the Industrial Court and because this Court was better placed and had greater resources to attend to urgent industrial matters in circumstances where the Industrial Court, then composed of only one Judge, could not. These are merely procedural and resourcing issues, not issues that go to the substantive law.
Importantly, the second reading speech makes clear that Parliament intended that the industrial relations expertise of members of the Industrial Court would continue when its jurisdiction was transferred to this Court. At page 12 of Hansard, the speech stated: There is also a number of judges who are currently appointed to the Supreme Court with industrial relations expertise. The Industrial Court and the Supreme Court both have status as superior courts of record. Judicial industrial relations matters will therefore continue to be heard in a superior court by judges with appropriate expertise. The Supreme Court already hears matters falling within the Industrial Court's jurisdiction where necessary, including when the sole judge of the Industrial Court is on leave. … I turn now to the practical impact of the change outlined in the bill. The practical impact of the change will be minimal. The move of the judicial functions and the sole judge of the Industrial Court to the Supreme Court will in practice create minimal change to the jurisdiction and functioning of the commission. The actual distribution of functions between the commission and the Industrial Court will remain unchanged, the only difference being that the court's functions will be performed within the Supreme Court. [Emphasis added.]
The parliamentary debate that ensued notes that this Court would continue the functions of the former Industrial Court and emphasis was placed on the industrial expertise in this Court: see, eg, New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 11 October 2016 at page 108 where the reply speech on behalf of the Hon John Ajaka in the second reading debate drew attention to specific Judges of the Common Law Division who had prior industrial relations experience.
The extrinsic material demonstrates that the integration of the Industrial Court and this Court was merely to address procedural matters and that the procedure, processes and expertise of the Industrial Court would not be substantively changed.
Thus, I consider that Judges of this Court, in industrial proceedings under Ch 6A of the Act, can have regard to common knowledge in the industrial context, including the conduct of employers and unions in this State over a period of time. This is because, if this Court did not have the power to exercise the powers and functions of the former Industrial Court to consider matters of common knowledge in the industrial context, that would be a substantive change in the law - something that the text and extrinsic material demonstrate was resisted by the Parliament.
In any case, judicial notice of a union's industrial record in industrial proceedings is not unheard of in this Court. For example, in Building Construction Employees & Builders' Labourers Federation of New South Wales v Minister for Industrial Relations (1985) 1 NSWLR 197, Lee J considered that it may well be that "the publicity given to and notoriety of the actions of the plaintiff union in recent times in the industrial field would justify a court in holding that the mischief to be remedied by the [Industrial Arbitration (Special Provisions) Act 1984 (NSW) (repealed)] was one of common knowledge" although his Honour concluded that the mischief could also be discerned by the second reading speech: at 205.
Nor would consideration of matters of common knowledge in the industrial context be uncommon for a superior court of general jurisdiction. I consider that this is no different to Judges of the Federal Court of Australia, another superior court of general jurisdiction, drawing on matters of "common knowledge" when considering the industrial record of unions breaching industrial laws and their influence in a particular industry: see, eg, Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2017) 254 FCR 68; [2017] FCAFC 113 at 102 [162] (Dowsett, Greenwood and Wigney JJ).
In Re Optimisation Australia Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 31 ("Re Optimisation"), Brereton J (as his Honour then was) considered whether this Court would fall within the definition of "eligible State or Territory court" in s 12 of the Fair Work Act, which included "the Industrial Court of New South Wales" in para (ca). His Honour held that, although many of the functions of the former Industrial Court were transferred to this Court by the 2016 Amendment Act, it did not necessarily follow that a Commonwealth statute conferring powers on the Industrial Court could be interpreted to include this Court: at [438]. His Honour reached this conclusion primarily because "the Commonwealth Parliament appears to have intended to give jurisdiction only to a specialist industrial court, not a superior court of general jurisdiction".
It is clear that Brereton J in Re Optimisation was only dealing with a Commonwealth statute and the intent of the Commonwealth Parliament. His Honour was not dealing with the intent of the Parliament of New South Wales or the law of this State. Indeed, if the Court had been dealing with identical language in an Act of the NSW Parliament, the savings and transitional provisions in cl 70(1)(a) of Sch 4 to the 1996 Act provides that a reference to the Industrial Court or the Commission in Court Session in any Act or instrument is to be read as a reference to the successor court for the function concerned. Therefore, I do not consider my view to be inconsistent with Re Optimisation.
It is strictly unnecessary to determine this issue because, as I explain below, I am satisfied that the good industrial record of the defendant can be demonstrated through the evidence. Nevertheless, I am of the view that, although this Court is a superior court of general jurisdiction, this Court may, in industrial proceedings, take on judicial notice any matter of common knowledge in the industrial context. In this matter, however, an acknowledgment of the Association's role as a 'good industrial citizen' does not materially affect the penalty imposed as full weight has been given to the history of non-contraventions by the defendant.

[75]

Penalties Imposed in Past Decisions can be Considered

It can be helpful to have regard to and compare past judicial decisions to determine the appropriate penalty provided that there is appropriate caution and a recognition of the limitations of this approach. In R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, French CJ, Keane and Nettle JJ at [26]-[27] explained: As was explained in Hili, the point of sentencing judges and intermediate appellate courts having regard to what has been done in other comparable cases throughout the Commonwealth is twofold: first, it can and should provide guidance as to the identification and application of relevant sentencing principles; and, secondly, the analysis of comparable cases may yield discernible sentencing patterns and possibly a range of sentences against which to examine a proposed or impugned sentence. It does not mean that the range of sentences so disclosed is necessarily the correct range or otherwise determinative of the upper and lower limits of sentencing discretion. As was emphasised in Hili [v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45], and again more recently in Barbaro v The Queen [(2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2], the sentencing task is inherently and inevitably more complex than that."
In Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194, Simpson J (as her Honour then was) said the following about this "range" at [303]-[304]: A history of sentencing can establish a range of sentences that have in fact been imposed. Such a history does not establish that that range is the correct range, nor that either the upper or the lower limit is the correct upper and lower limit. Sentencing patterns are, of course, of considerable significance in that they result from the application of the accumulated experience and wisdom of first instance judges and of appellate courts. But it would be a mistake to regard an established range as fixing the boundaries within which future judges must, or even ought, to sentence. To take that attitude would be, de facto, to substitute judicial selection of sentences in individual cases for the boundaries of sentencing for a particular offence laid down by Parliament. In this case, that range is from 0 to 25 years. Of course, it is well established that the maximum sentence is reserved for the most serious cases … the ranges of sentences actually imposed, while illuminating, are no more than historical statements of what has happened in the past. They can, and should, provide guidance to sentencing judges, and to appellate courts, and stand as a yardstick against which to examine a proposed sentence. But it is only by examination of the whole of the circumstances that have given rise to the sentence that 'unifying principles' may be discerned: Wong v The Queen (at [59]).
In PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018], Bathurst CJ (with whom Gleeson and Simpson JJA agreed) stated at 795 [159]: Of course, it must be remembered that, although a history of sentencing can establish a range of sentences, it does not establish that the range is the correct range: Hili v The Queen at [54], citing Simpson J in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [303]-[305]; Barbaro at [7], [26]-[28]; R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39 at [26]-[27]. However, it remains relevant to consider the range as a "yardstick" against which to measure the sentence imposed by the primary judge: Hili v The Queen at [54].
I note that neither the prosecutor or defendant submitted a schedule of cases where penalties were imposed for contraventions of dispute orders or information of that kind. Providing such information to the Court was common practice in the past: see, eg, PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] at 795 [158] (Bathurst CJ). It was also common practice in the Industrial Court. In criminal matters, the Crown has a well-recognised duty to assist the Court by furnishing appropriate and relevant material touching on sentence, including the offender's criminal antecedents report: R v Gamble [1983] 3 NSWLR 356 at 359 (Street CJ, with whom Lee and Enderby JJ agreed). However, the obligation on Crown prosecutors in criminal matters does not extend to a plaintiff or prosecutor for civil penalty proceedings: Commonwealth v FWBII at 521 [102] (Keane J). Nevertheless, I suggest that parties should endeavour to provide such information to the Court in any future contravention proceeding.
The first decision is BlueScope v AWU [2005] NSWIRComm 99. That case stemmed from an industrial dispute that had culminated in threatened and actual strike action by the packaging products employees at BlueScope Steel's Port Kembla steelworks. Commissioner Connor made dispute orders on 16 February 2004 ("the first order") that employees, unions and their members "cease and refrain" from industrial action and that the unions and its officers take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the order.
Despite some efforts by the Australian Workers Union, New South Wales ("AWU") to ensure compliance, the employees continued their strike over two days. Commissioner Connor then made amended dispute orders ("the amended order") on 17 February 2004. Those orders were directed against the AWU, the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, New South Wales Branch ("AFMEPKIU") and another union. Boland J (as his Honour then was) found that the AWU and AFMEPKIU breached the first and amended dispute orders.
A penalty was imposed by Boland J in the subsequent decision of BlueScope v AWU [2005] NSWIRComm 210. His Honour considered the relevant factors in assessing the appropriate penalty. His Honour found that neither union had previously contravened a dispute order (at [49]); the consequences of the contravention appear not to be massive (at [51]); very little weight should be given for specific deterrence (at [52]); there should be a small element for general deterrence (at [53]); there was no expression of remorse or contrition for the contravention of the orders (at [54]); and there have otherwise been good records of the unions (at [55]).
At [57]-[58], his Honour imposed the following penalties and made the following orders: Penalty [57] The Court considers the appropriate penalties in this case to be as follows: Matter No IRC 3226 of 2004 - Summons on the AWU 16 February 2004 (1) Contravention of order (ii) of the dispute orders made on 16 February 2004: $ 4,000. 17 February 2004 (2) Contravention of order (ii) of the dispute orders made on 16 February 2004: $ 2,500. (3) Contravention of order 2 of the amended dispute orders made on 17 February 2004: $ 4,500. (4) Contravention of order 3 of the amended dispute orders made on 17 February 2004: No penalty. 27 February 2004 (5) Contravention of order 2 of the amended dispute orders made on 17 February 2004: $ 2,000. (6) Contravention of order 3 of the amended dispute orders made on 17 February 2004: $2,000. Matter No. IRC 3223 of 2004 - Summons on the AFMEPKIU 17 February 2004 (1) Contravention of order 2 of the amended dispute orders made on 17 February 2004: $ 2,000. Orders [58] The Court makes the following orders: Matter No IRC 3226 of 2004 - Summons on the AWU (1) The Australian Workers Union, New South Wales is fined an amount of $15,000. Matter No. IRC 3223 of 2004 - Summons on the AFMEPKIU (1) The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, New South Wales Branch is fined an amount of $2,000.
On appeal in AWU v BlueScope [2006], the Full Bench held that Boland J made two errors in the calculation of the penalty by (1) treating the obligations in the dispute orders as separate orders and determining separate penalties for each contravention and (2) assessing separate penalties for the contravention of separate obligations within the dispute orders, rather than for the single, ongoing contravention of the dispute orders: at 170 [68] (Wright J, President, Walton J, Vice-President, and Marks J).
The Full Bench at 171 [73] imposed the following penalty on the AWU (noting that the AFMEPKIU did not appeal): Maximum applied Penalty imposed (s 139(4)(a)) (1) breach of dispute orders on 16 February 2004 $10,000 $4,000 (2) breach of dispute orders on 17 February 2004 $5,000 $2,000 (3) breach of dispute orders on 27 February 2004 $5,000 $2,000 Total penalty $8,000

[76]

In Education Director-General v NSWTF [2010] NSWIRComm 44, the New South Wales Teachers Federation ("the Federation") admitted to a contravention of dispute orders by taking industrial action in the form of a 24-hour strike that involved approximately 4,000 employees at TAFE who are members of the Federation in circumstances where this industrial action was authorised by the Federation: at [3].
The salient features of Staff J's thorough and well-considered decision were as follows: the contravention was undertaken in blatant and deliberate defiance of the dispute order (at [37(a)]); there was inconvenience to students through the cancellation of classes (at [37(c)]); the industrial action was entirely without justification (at [37(e)]); and, the Federation failed to apologise to the Court for the breach and to make a public declaration of belief in, and a willingness to uphold the integrity of the Commission (at [37(g)]). His Honour found that the Federation engaged in serious industrial misconduct which cannot be left unsanctioned and required some form of condign punishment: at [38]. The penalty should be in the mid-range having regard to the fact that the Executive of the Federation was instrumental in bringing about a settlement of the dispute by the time of the judgment: at [41]-[42].
Staff J found that the penalty should include an element of specific deterrence and a small element of general deterrence: at [46]-[47]. In relation to the subjective factors, his Honour noted that the Federation admitted to the contravention of the dispute order and accordingly there should be a discount: at [49]. A penalty of $4000 was applied for a single breach that occurred on one day.
In Education Director-General v NSWTF [2010] NSWIRComm 77, the Federation admitted to a contravention of dispute orders by taking industrial action in the form of a 3-hour strike for a stop work meeting that involved approximately 2,360 employees at TAFE who are members of the Federation in circumstances where this industrial action was authorised by the Federation: at [1].
Marks J held that the breach by the Federation was a "most serious matter": at [25]. His Honour stated that, given the flagrant breach of the dispute order, the Court "can have no confidence that the respondent will not breach any further dispute order if it determines that it should act in that way": at [27]. Hence, the Court "took into account the deterrent effect both generally and on this respondent to the fullest possible extent when assessing the appropriate penalty": at [27].
His Honour held that the fact that the early plea of guilty by the Federation at an early point in time can be taken into account to mitigate the amount of the penalty to be assessed: at [28]. However, this did not constitute an indication of contrition or remorse and no discount was accorded in the matter: at [28]-[29]. A penalty of $7000 was applied for a single breach that occurred on one day.
In Director-General of the NSW Department of Education and Communities and Managing Director of TAFE NSW v New South Wales Teachers Federation [2012] NSWIRComm 58 ("Education Director-General v NSWTF [2012] NSWIRComm 58"), the Federation admitted that it did not took industrial action on a single day and did not cease or refrain from authorising or organising industrial action on two days: at [26].
Haylen J noted that, as the Federation had previously contravened dispute orders, it was exposed to a maximum penalty of $20,000 for the first day of the contravention and $10,000 for each day thereafter under s 139(4)(b) of the Act. In this case, there was a need for deterrence and in recognition of the fact that the industrial action resulted in the substantial closure of schools and had a significance impact upon TAFE operations: at [12], [33].
A distinguishing feature in that case was the fact that there was an early notification to the Director-General of the industrial action, which gave the Director-General sufficient time to make an early application for dispute orders: at [39]. Overall, the Court imposed a total penalty of $6000 for the contraventions over two days.
In Fire and Rescue NSW on behalf of Department of Premier and Cabinet v New South Wales Fire Brigade Employees' Union [2012] NSWIRComm 76 ("FRNSW v FBEU [2012]"), the defendant union instructed their members to take industrial action in the form of bans on relieving, stand-bys, out-duties and administrative functions. After dispute orders were made, the defendant union instructed its members that the bans remained in force. The President, Boland J, stated that "in a gesture confirming the FBEU was thumbing its nose completely at the Commission's orders, the Union not only maintained the bans in place after the dispute orders were made, but it put in place additional bans": at [38].
The defendant union acknowledged that it contravened the dispute orders made by the Commission: at [22]. However, his Honour noted that earlier recommendations by the Commission had provided the defendant union with a "sophisticated and civilised" regime for dealing with its grievance against the applicant that rendered entirely unnecessary resort to industrial action: at [31]-[35].
The Court considered that the additional overtime worked during the period of the bans had an estimated cost of $183,000. However, there was no widespread disruption and the bans did not affect the Brigade's ability to deal with any outbreak of fire: at [40]. His Honour noted that the defendant union appears to believe that its conduct was justified and thus there was a strong case for including in the penalty an element for specific deterrence and general deterrence: at [41].
The President noted at [42]: An important mitigating factor is that despite the Unions' long history of involvement in the State's system of industrial relations, this is the first time it has been found that the FBEU contravened a dispute order. It is regrettable the Union has tarnished that fine record, particularly because it did so in circumstances where it was completely unnecessary and where after having had a disputes order made against it, the Union escalated the bans.
The Court imposed a penalty of $7,500 for the first day of the contravention and $3,500 for the second day: at [45]. The total penalty was $11,000.
In Education Director-General v NSWTF [2012] NSWIRComm 93, the Federation contravened a dispute order by authorising its members to stop work for 24 hours. The President, Boland J, found that the Federation's conduct was a serious contravention undertaken in deliberate defiance of dispute orders: at [28]. His Honour noted that the strike disrupted student learning and there was considerable inconvenience caused to the community: at [35].
His Honour held that some weight must be given to the need for general deterrence: at [39]. Specific deterrence must constitute a significant element of the penalty because the Federation is a repeat offender and had given no sign it will refrain in the future from contravening dispute orders: at [40]. The Federation had admitted the contravention and some utilitarian value was to be taken into account because the prosecutor was not put to proof: at [41].
His Honour held that "[t]he conduct engaged in by the Federation, its prior record of offences, its refusal to acknowledge its wrongdoing, its silence regarding future conduct and the other factors I have taken into account, weigh heavily in favour of a penalty at the high end of the range": at [44]. A penalty of $17,500 was imposed. That was the highest penalty imposed by the former Industrial Court.
In Treasury Secretary v PSA [2013], the defendant union contravened a dispute order that directed it to refrain from taking industrial action. There was a stoppage of work on some government departments and agencies that affected, amongst other things, the operation of correctional centres and courts; the provision of care and management of students with disabilities and behaviour disorders; ageing, disability and homecare services; and a Roads and Maritime Services registry: at 354 [19], 359 [46].
The President, Boland J, found that the industrial action was "not of the worst kind or anywhere near it" because it was "not a lengthy stoppage or one of a 'wildcat' nature designed to inflict severe damage on, or disruption to, the operations of government or to inconvenience the public to any significant degree": at 357 [31]. His Honour stated at 358-359 [43] that: [W]here an industrial organisation takes a decision to deliberately flout an order that it shall not engage in industrial action in circumstances where it does not avail itself of well established and highly effective mechanisms to deal with its industrial grievance, the organisation does so in the knowledge that it is highly probable there will be consequences adverse to the organisation.
His Honour found that the disruption was minimal given the size and scope of the public sector in this State and the potential disruption that 44,000 members of the PSA could have wrought: at 359 [46]. An element of general deterrence was small at most: at 359 [49]. It was noted that the defendant union had a good record in terms of industrial behaviour over a very long period of time, there was no evidence of any propensity to contravene dispute orders of the Commission and the union had expressed regret for its actions: at 359 [50].
It was also noted that the defendant union had admitted the contravention and that it was a good industrial citizen: at 360 [51]. The penalty imposed was $2500.
In Industrial Relations Secretary v PSA [2017], the defendant union put on its website a bulletin which stated that it would proceed with a 24-hour strike on 14 February 2017 even if it meant the union "cops a fine". Fagan J imposed a penalty that totalled $84,000: Industrial Relations Secretary v Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 430 at [36]-[37] (Fagan J).
The penalty imposed by Fagan J was set aside by the Court of Appeal in PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] on the ground that it was "manifestly excessive in the sense that it is 'unreasonable or plainly unjust'": at 794 [153], 795 [160] (Bathurst CJ with whom Gleeson and Simpson JJA agreed).
The Chief Justice assessed the seriousness of the contravention "at a little below the middle range": at 794 [155]. His Honour explained at 794-795 [155]-[158]: [155] … Although the contravention continued for 14 days, it was related to a single-day strike which ultimately had limited impact, as I have noted at [45] above. Further, it must be remembered that the contravention, apart from the placing of the Bulletin on the appellant's website, involved what might be called "passive" conduct or "contravention by omission"; namely, failing to take down the Flyer and the Bulletin from the website. [156] The primary judge placed some weight on the fact that the failure to take down the Bulletin and the Flyer was in "deliberate defiance" of the dispute orders made by the Commission. It is true that, as the appellant pointed out, most contraventions will be deliberate, but it must be remembered that, in the present case, the Bulletin publicly indicated the appellant's intention to ignore the dispute orders by being prepared to "cop a fine", and urged its members to strike in the face of the dispute orders: first judgment at [47]. Further, consideration must also be given to the continual failure to take down the Flyer and the Bulletin after the primary judge delivered the first judgment. [157] I agree with the primary judge that general deterrence is an important consideration. If the industrial relations system embodied in the IR Act is to achieve its objects, any penalty needs to incorporate a significant level of general deterrence. I agree with the remarks of the primary judge that there was little need for specific deterrence in the circumstances of the present case. I also agree with his comments on the issues of remorse and contrition. [158] Finally, it is significant that the penalty imposed was considerably higher than any previous penalty. The court was supplied with a schedule of cases where penalties were imposed for contraventions of dispute orders. However, beyond demonstrating that the penalty was well in excess of any penalty previously imposed, the contraventions in each of the cases in the schedule differed in their circumstances. Although a number of cases involved strikes occurring over more than one day, none involved a contravention of the nature of that which occurred in the present case, which continued over an extended period of 14 days.
His Honour considered that the appropriate penalty is a "fine" of $25,000: at 795 [161]. It is noteworthy that, in that case, the maximum penalty was $150,000 under s 139(4)(b) of the Act because the union had penalties previously imposed for a contravention of an earlier dispute orders and the contravention had lasted 14 days.
In Education Secretary v AEU [2022], which has been discussed throughout this judgment, the defendant union admitted to organising and taking industrial action. The dispute orders in that case had required the defendant union to issue a public statement to retract and revoke its direction to members to strike, remove any references to a strike on its websites and documents, and inform its members of the orders and direct they comply with the order: see [12]. The contraventions by the defendant union were blatant and deliberate in their defiance of the orders: at [361]. The impact of the strike was widespread and resulted in the cessation of a great number of schools across NSW, as well as inconvenience to the community and working parents: at [374]-[381].
The defendant union had previously contravened earlier dispute orders (at [388]) but there had been a nearly decade long abstinence by the Federation from industrial action (at [392]). General deterrence was given substantial weight: at [397]. The penalty also reflected an element of specific deterrence: at [401]. The defendant union did not make any expressions of remorse or contrition: at [410].
In that matter, I imposed a penalty of $25,000 for the contravention concerning the organisation of the strike by a single course of conduct which occurred over 8 days where the maximum penalty was $45,000: at [415]. I imposed a penalty of $8,000 for engaging in the strike itself where the maximum penalty was $10,000: at [416]. Applying the principle of totality, an enforcement order was made for a penalty of $30,000 under s 139(3)(e) of the Act: at [417]-[418].
Education Secretary v AEU [2022] thus represents the highest penalty previously imposed by this Court or the former Industrial Court for contraventions of a dispute order. This is not to say that the highest previous penalty sets some kind of "maximum". The maximum penalty remains that set by Parliament in s 139(4) of the Act. Nevertheless, this survey of past decisions demonstrates the range of penalties that have been applied to various circumstances.

[78]

Nature and Extent of the Contravening Conduct and Deliberateness of the Contravention

The March Orders made by the Commissioner were expressed in clear terms, well recognisable by industrial participants within the NSW industrial system. I accept the submission of the prosecutor that the contravention by the defendant were undertaken in blatant and deliberate defiance of the March Orders.
On 30 March 2022, Mr Holmes sent a letter to Mr Minns confirming that the Association's Council had "considered the issue and the numbers made available to it of nurses and midwives on furlough in the Public Health System and continues the commitment to providing life preserving care, but further resolves to continue the industrial action voted on by the NSWNMA COD and Branches for Thursday 31 March."
The Executive and Council of the Association, who are responsible for management of the Association, took a conscious decision in the face of the March Orders to proceed with the 24-hour strike. The defendant's conduct in its Council resolving to continue organising the industrial action; sending an email to its members that "[i]t's time to hold strong, continue the fight and attend your rally as planned"; issuing of a directive to the effect that the strike will go ahead in defiance of the orders; and publishing a post on Facebook that "[n]urses and midwives will be taking strike action tomorrow … Will you join us?" was in deliberate defiance of the Commission's order made on 25 March 2022. This conduct was not "passive" conduct or a "contravention by omission". They were wanton acts by the defendant in disobedience of the order and sanctioned by the Executive of the Association.
There are some factors, however, which ameliorates the objective seriousness of this contravention. The industrial action was for a short duration of one day and was envisioned to be of that duration.
The defendant had given advance notice to the prosecutor that it intended to take industrial action and this allowed the prosecutor to notify the industrial dispute to the Commission. After the March Orders were made, the defendant, through its Branch representatives, gave notice as to strike action in the days leading up to the strike. I accept the evidence in the First Fitzsimons Affidavit that this placed significant pressure on hospitals. However, it is also clear that it did enable hospital nursing management, albeit under great pressure, to organise meetings, collect information about the number of striking nurses and midwives, and reorganise surgeries and procedures.
The defendant had kept the prosecutor updated on meetings and votes undertaken by the relevant Branches and promptly replied to inquiries by officers or employees of the prosecutor about the extent and scope of its industrial action. In some Branches, the evidence shows that the Branch Executive and Association were encouraging individual members to advise their Nursing Unit Manager, Midwifery Unit Manager or direct line manager as to whether they are taking industrial action.
The evidence also shows that the defendant and its officers or members within its Branches made an effort to ensure that life-preserving care could continue and sought to prevent extreme disruption to patient services. This was reflected in some of the correspondence to the fact that members of the defendant felt bound by the International Council of Nurses Code of Ethics and the need to provide safe care in health practices, services and settings.
An example of this can be seen in the Tullamore Multi Purpose Service Branch ("Tullamore Branch"). A letter sent by Branch President, Ms Emma Schubert, and Branch Secretary, Ms Julie Strudwick, to the Health Service Manager of Tullamore Multi Purpose Service, Ms Katrina Mulligan, dated 28 March 2022, which stated that the Branch is committed to "ensure that life preserving staffing is maintained during this 24 hour [strike] period". The authors of that letter recognised that "due to the already existing critical staff shortages at Tullamore and a daily inability to fill the roster, the members will not have capacity to strike for any length of time". Members of the Tullamore Branch imposed work bans and would prioritise and attend to "only direct essential patient care"; the members on shift on 31 March 2022 would wear a red t-shirt to work; and, those members would "[t]ake "turns" in a 30 minute "walk out"". This is a departure from how other Branches had decided to take strike action, which was predominantly to have their members to stop work for a number of hours.
However, there were some places where the executive management and Branch members were not in agreement. At 5:00pm on 30 March 2022 (the day before the strike), an organiser employed by the defendant, Mr Mark Murphy, emailed a member of Nursing management, Ms Marie Baxter, to indicate that the Branch members did not agree to the Blacktown Mount Druitt Hospital executive's position of Emergency Department staffing on the next day. This email was sent very late and, as the First Fitzsimons Affidavit demonstrates, this resulted in time consuming negotiations with staff to adjust the nursing roster. It does not appear from that email that Mr Murphy proposed another alternative staffing arrangement to the hospital executive.
The evidence also shows that Ms Johnson had emailed representatives of the Association, Mr John Paul Marx and Mr Holmes, on 30 March 2022 with a detailed request for staff because John Hunter Hospital was "significantly compromised in ICU, ED and Surgery for LIFE SAVING CARE". Ms Johnson recounts in her affidavit that, later that day, in a meeting between two representatives of hospital management and two representatives of the Association, the Association agreed to the suggested level of staffing but gave "no guarantee that the members would agree to return" and that "if on strike day there were further deficits then it was not the responsibility of the NSWMNA and that we, hospital management, would need to manage this". Ms Johnson stated "[w]hat we argued for at that meeting and in my previous email correspondence was the absolute minimum staffing in our most critical care areas".
When viewing the evidence as a whole, I am of the view that most Branches of the defendant made a real effort to minimise the impact of its strike on the patients that nurses and midwives care for. It appears that, at least at some Branches like the Tullamore Branch, the nature of the industrial action was tailored or adjusted to meet patient needs and work demands. There was a recognition by most Branches and members of the defendant that some patients were vulnerable. In those Branches, the defendant, its officers and members acted with care to take steps to avoid impacting essential and life-preserving care. However, it can be observed that this sentiment was not shared by all members and Branch representatives. There were strong pleas from "on-the-ground" management in some areas and the response by the defendant was not as responsive or compassionate as those in in other areas.
Overall, the evidence shows that the industrial action was not taken in a fashion which may be described as precipitous and designed to inflict maximum damage on or disruption to the operations of the Ministry of Health. This is not to say that the prosecutor did not need to take very significant logistical steps to ameliorate the impact of the strike. But it is an acknowledgement that a real effort was made to reduce the impact on patients by most Branches and members of the defendant. This is in contrast to the attitude of other public sector unions in the past that had merely left it to individual employees on the day to decide whether or not to take strike action and there would be chaos in essential public services with no ability to advise those affected of the facilities available or whether there would be closures: see Education Director-General v NSWTF [2012] NSWIRComm 58 at [38] (Haylen J).

[79]

Loss and Damage Caused

The First Fitzsimons Affidavit showed that at Westmead Hospital and WSLHD: 1. The hospital was only able to notify patients of cancelled surgery/procedure with approximately 2 days' notice, which particularly inconvenienced patients travelling form Greater NSW who are required to book accommodation and travel arrangements. Certain patients were required to commence preoperative preparations, which if done without a resulting surgery (and delay in surgical procedure) can have significant adverse effects on their care; 2. The Senior Nursing Managers utilised casual staff members, the payment of overtime and reprioritised workloads in theatre for the day of the strike. Hospital indirect nursing staff had to undertake front line nursing duties. As a result of redirecting staff because of the shortages caused by the strike, a Clinical Nurse Educator (whose role is to support and educate less experienced nursing staff) was not available. Several Nurse Managers from the District office had to undertake front line nursing duties across different facilities; and 3. 19 patients had their surgeries cancelled and all elective surgeries were cancelled. Westmead Hospital was only able to run four theatres during the strike, instead of the normal 16.
The Johnson Affidavit demonstrates that approximately 278 nurses and midwives (approximately 34% of the average 823 staff rostered on to work in a 24 hour period) from John Hunter Hospital participated in a 24 hour strike. The salient features from the Johnson Affidavit show that, on 31 March 2022, the impact of the strike at that hospital was as follows: 1. In relation to midwifery services, there were no high-risk psychological midwife services provided in maternity and gynaecology; the antenatal clinical high risk midwife list was cancelled and rescheduled; two Newcastle community antenatal clinic midwife lists were cancelled and rescheduled; there was no maternal foetal medicine referral midwife available; the induction of labour was limited to 2 (usually 4); caesarean sections were limited to 1 (usually 3); and, clinical services were limited to urgent only in the maternity and gynaecology day unit; 2. A number of wards/units/services worked below their normal nursing allocation, including ward F3, where the morning and night shift were not able to be filled; 3. Two planned cardiothoracic surgeries cancelled. 4. 5 out of the 15 surgical theatres were operational, which meant that only urgent surgeries were prioritised. As a result, 31 theatre cases were cancelled; 5. 2 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantations (which is a procedure that aims to improve a damaged aortic valve in the heart) were cancelled; and 6. 37.5 hours of acute work, which is surgery that is required to stabilise a patient before they can leave the hospital, delayed a day or more increasing hospital length of stay and potentially patient outcomes.
The defendant did not refute this evidence but rather noted that a statement made by the prosecutor indicated that the disruption caused minor disruptions and delays to health services and that hospitals maintained life preserving staff.
Overall, I am satisfied that the disruption caused to the public health system was substantial and not insignificant, notwithstanding the effort made by the defendant and some of its members to reduce or mitigate that impact. I am satisfied that some patients were inconvenienced to a considerable extent by the shortage of staff. It is clear that some patients had important medical procedures cancelled and delayed. I am also satisfied that the provision of the use of casual staff members and payment of overtime would likely have come at a cost to the prosecutor although this amount was not quantified. I accept that the evidence of the impact on Westmead Hospital, WSLHD and the John Hunter Hospital is representative of the impact on other LHDs in the State.
I am also concerned that some employees who worked on the day of the strike may have been placed at in a health and safety risk given the significant amount of time worked and the demands associated with a shortage of staff. The Johnson Affidavit describes that the Nurse Manager in the Emergency Department in the John Hunter Hospital managed that department from 7:00am to 1:30pm and then again from 9:15pm to 7:15am the next day, totalling 16 hours.
I am satisfied that the strike placed some patients and other employees in the Health Service at risk but I am not satisfied from the evidence that any patient was placed in life-threatening risk.

[80]

General Deterrence

In PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary, Bathurst CJ (with whom Gleeson and Simpson JJA agreed) stated at 795 [157]: I agree with the primary judge that general deterrence is an important consideration. If the industrial relations system embodied in the IR Act is to achieve its objects, any penalty needs to incorporate a significant level of general deterrence.
This can be contrasted with the remarks of Boland J, President, in Treasury Secretary v PSA [2013] at 359 [48]-[49] as follows: [48] As it was observed in Fire and Rescue NSW (on behalf of Department of Premier and Cabinet) v New South Wales Fire Brigade Employees' Union [[2012] NSWIRComm 76] at [41], one of the objectives of imposing a penalty under s 139 is to deter the offender from contravening the Act in future as well as others that might contemplate similar offences. [49] It has previously been observed by the Court in other proceedings that the incidence of contraventions of dispute orders is rare or almost non-existent. In those circumstances, any element for general deterrence must be small at most: Bluescope Steel (AIS) Ltd v Australian Workers' Union (NSW) (No 2) [2005] NSWIRComm 210 at [53]; Bluescope Steel Ltd (formerly known as BHP Steel Ltd) v Australian Workers' Union (NSW) [2006] NSWIRComm 338 at [34]; Director-General, NSW Department of Education and Training v NSW Teachers Federation [2010] NSWIRComm 44 at [47].
In Education Secretary v AEU [2022], I reconciled these statements of general deterrence at [397] as follows: The historical position reflected in those authorities of the Industrial Court, represented an era in which industrial parties were often concerned to give active compliance to recommendations and directions of the Commission and dispute orders were thereby sparingly imposed. The very cases relied upon by the Federation, in this respect, when viewed collectively (also including Annexure A to the written submissions of the Federation), when combined with the Federation's history, might well raise doubts as to whether the circumstances relied upon by the Industrial Court to minimise the need for general deterrence have passed. In any event, the deliberate defiance of dispute orders, as discussed in Industrial Relations Secretary at [156], and as occurred in this case, would suggest this Court should be less sanguine as to the likely approach of industrial organisations as to orders of the Commission. In my view, general deterrence must be given substantial weight in the penalty imposed upon the Federation. There is a need to discourage other potential offenders from committing offences under the Act.
I agree with the prosecutor that, if the Commission's authority is to be upheld, then participants in the industrial relations system who gain the benefits of that system must face a sufficient deterrent against flouting lawfully made dispute orders. There is a continuing need to deter potential contraveners from disregarding and disobeying the orders of the Commission. But where there has been a flagrant and deliberate defiance, there is a heightened need to give substantial weight to general deterrence, as observed in PSA v Industrial Relations Secretary [2018] at 795 [157] (Bathurst CJ) and Education Secretary v AEU [2022] at [397]. I believe that this is consistent with observations above where I discussed Pattinson. In this case, general deterrence should be given full force in the penalty.

[82]

Subjective Factors

It is common knowledge in the context of industrial relations in this State that the defendant has a long history of not engaging in industrial action in support of demands made on behalf of its members. (I note that I had put this matter to the parties on the second hearing day and indicated that this was based on my knowledge of the Association, its history and, more generally, industrial relations in this State.)
Although there have been a number of dispute orders made against the defendant in the course of industrial disputation (see, eg, Health Director v NSWNA [2010] at [25] (Boland J, President); Secretary, Ministry of Health in respect of Hunter New England Local Health District and New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association [2021] NSWIRComm 1046 at [20] (Commissioner Webster); Health Secretary v NSWMNA [2022] NSWIRComm 1047 at [26] (Commissioner Sloan); Health Secretary v NSWNMA [2022] NSWIRComm 1071 at [38] (Commissioner Sloan)), it can nonetheless be concluded that the defendant has generally had a good record in terms of industrial behaviour over a long period of time, including by complying with orders, directions and recommendations of the Commission, and actively participating in conciliation (see, eg, Director General, NSW Department of Health and New South Wales Nurses Association (No 3) [2010] NSWIRComm 190 (Boland J, President)).
In any event, and largely to the same outcome, I consider that, contrary to the submission of the prosecutor, the defendant's industrial record can, to a large extent, be established on the evidence before the Court that the defendant has not been found to have contravened a dispute order in the past or committed a criminal offence.
I conclude that the defendant has historically been a good industrial citizen, which is deserving of some leniency: see FRNSW v FBEU [2012] at [42].
Where there is an admission to contravening a dispute order, the Court should discount the penalty that would otherwise have been imposed to reflect the utilitarian value for the saving of costs and expenses, and the time of the Court in dealing with this matter: Education Secretary v AEU [2022] at [409] (Walton J); Education Director-General v NSWTF [2010] NSWIRComm 44 at [49] (Staff J). Here, the defendant admitted to pleaded contraventions H and I (subject to a question of validity) but put the prosecutor to proof on pleaded contraventions C to G. It is appropriate that a small discount be given in these circumstances.
There is no evidence of contrition or regret of the conduct in breach of the defendant's obligations under the dispute order.

[83]

Conclusion

In determining the appropriate penalty, all of the relevant factors must be taken into account by way of an instinctive synthesis that identifies all the relevant factors, discusses their significance and then arrives at a single appropriate result which takes due account of them all: Markarian at 375 [39] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ).
Having regard to the above factors, I am satisfied that it is not appropriate to dismiss the matter under s 139(3)(a) of the Act. The past decisions where contravention proceedings were dismissed - including Education Director-General v NSWTF [2000] NSWIRComm 103, BlueScope (No 3) [2006] and BlueScope (No 2) [2005] - involved an apology, statement of regret or a commitment to rectify or remedy the breach by the contravener. Nothing of that kind is present in this case. Furthermore, the defendant's brazen defiance of the Commission's orders must attract a significant penalty to both generally and specifically deter such future conduct.
The contravention of the March Orders by organising the strike and inducing, advising, authorising, supporting, encouraging, directing, aiding or abetting members of the defendant to organise or take industrial action over 7 days is, in my view, objectively serious.
I have had regard to the statutory guidelines of the maximum sentence together with the circumstances bearing upon the objective seriousness of the offence and subjective features.
I have concluded that the contravention concerning the organisation of the strike by a single course of conduct which occurred over seven days (pleaded contraventions C to I on the Amended Summons) should attract a penalty of $25,000.
If I am wrong on the validity of the February Orders and they are valid, I would have imposed a penalty of $11,500 for pleaded contravention A on the Amended Summons (which attracts a maximum penalty of $15,000). In addition to the above factors, regard would be had to the evidence in the First Fitzsimons Affidavit and Johnson Affidavit as to the particular disruption, inconvenience and impact caused by the strike on 15 February 2022.
I note that a penalty imposed under s 139(3)(e) of the Act may be recovered in the same way as a penalty imposed by this Court for an offence against the Act: s 139(5) of the Act. A monetary penalty imposed by this Court for an offence is a "fine" under s 4(1) of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) ("Fines Act") and thus the Fines Act applies: see BHP v AWU [2003] NSWIRComm 151 at [92] (Haylen J). Accordingly, the penalty is payable within 28 days: Fines Act s 7(1).

[84]

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the attacks by the defendant on the validity of the February and March Orders are properly characterised as collateral attacks. The Court has a discretion to decline to hear and determine a collateral attack. However, having regard to all the circumstances of this case, it should not exercise that discretion.
The Commission, when making dispute orders in arbitration proceedings, is under an implied statutory obligation to give reasons. That obligation is a flexible one and, in circumstances where the Commission is constrained by the need to act quickly, the reasons need not be lengthy or complex. A failure to give reasons is an error of law but does not amount to jurisdictional error.
In making the February Orders, the Commissioner failed to consider and respond to two clearly articulated, substantial arguments about the Secretary's delay in notifying the dispute to the Commission and the extent of the potential loss, damage and economic impact. As there was a real possibility that the Commission could have reached a different outcome, its failure amounted to jurisdictional error. The Amended Summons, insofar that it relates to the February Orders, must be dismissed.
The Commissioner did not err in failing to consider and respond to any of the arguments put by the Association when he made the March Orders. There was no proper basis advanced for concluding that those orders are vitiated by jurisdictional error.
The defendant breached the March Orders for seven days by organising the strike and inducing, advising, authorising, supporting, encouraging, directing, aiding or abetting members of the defendant to organise or take industrial action. The prosecutor has not satisfied the Court that the defendant breached the March Orders by failing to refrain from taking industrial action.
The defendant's defiance of the March Orders was brazen and deliberate. The penalty should reflect the need to both specifically deter the defendant from future breaches of dispute orders and generally deter industrial organisations from such breaches. Having regard to the objective and subjective factors, an order should be made under s 139(3)(e) for a penalty of $25,000. For completeness, no order is made for costs: s 355E(3) of the Act.
For these reasons, the Court makes the following orders: 1. The Amended Summons, insofar that it pertains to pleaded contraventions A, B and J, is dismissed. 2. The Court declares that The New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association has contravened the dispute orders made by the Industrial Relations Commission on 15 March 2022 in the respects alleged by the prosecutor in pleaded contraventions C to I of the Amended Summons. 3. The Court imposes a penalty of $25,000 on The New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association. 4. Grant liberty to the parties to apply within seven days of the publication of this judgment.

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

Secretary of the Ministry of Health

Respondent/Defendant:

The New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association

Legislation Cited (65)

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904(Cth)

Fair Work Act 2009(NSW)

Act 1989(NSW)ss 69

Government and Related Employees' Tribunal Act 1980(NSW)

Industrial Arbitration (Special Provisions) Act 1984(NSW)

Industrial Arbitration Act 1940(NSW)

Industrial Relations (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Regulation 2014(NSW)

Industrial Relations Act 1991(NSW)

Industrial Relations Amendment (Industrial Court) Act 2016(NSW)

Industrial Relations Amendment Act 2005(NSW)

Industrial Relations Commission Rules 2009(NSW)

Legal Profession Act 1987(NSW)

Legal Profession Reform Act 1993(NSW)

Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015(NSW)pt 2

Public Service Act 1979(NSW)

heading "Industrial Relations Act 1996") Teaching Service Act 1980(NSW)

Workplace Relations Act 1996(Cth)

Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005(Cth)

Relations Act 1991(NSW)

(Industrial Relations Secretary); Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988(NSW)s 104(9)

(Industrial Relations Secretary and Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW); Government Sector Audit Act 1983(NSW)s 33E

(Commissioner of Police); Teaching Service Act 1980(NSW)s 12

(Secretary of the Department of Education); Transport Administration Act 1988(NSW)ss 59(3)

Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006(Vic)

Tenancies Act 1997(Vic)

(Supreme Court Rules 1970(NSW)

1940 Act"); Government and Related Employees' Tribunal Act 1980(NSW)

Strata Titles Act 1973(NSW)

Industrial Relations Act 1988(Cth)

State (Industrial Arbitration Act 1901(NSW)

Small Debts Recovery Act 1912(NSW)

Accidents Compensation Act 1999(NSW)

Relations Act 1996(Cth)

Arbitration Act 1904(Cth)

Industrial Court (Industrial Relations Commission Rules 2009(NSW)r 13.2)

Arbitration (Special Provisions) Act 1984(NSW)

Industrial Relations Act 1996(NSW)ss 136, 137, s 139, s 179

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984(Cth)

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977(Cth)

Bail Act 2013(NSW)

Constitution Act 1902(NSW)

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001(NSW)

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979(NSW)

Evidence Act 1995(NSW)s 140.

Fines Act 1996(NSW)

Government Sector Audit Act 1983(NSW)

Government Sector Employment Act 2013(NSW)s 50

Health Services Act 1997(NSW)

Home Building Act 1989(NSW)

Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988(NSW)

Industrial Relations Act 2016(Qld)

Interpretation Act 1987(NSW)s 34

Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015(NSW)r 4(a)

Police Act 1990(NSW)s 85

Supreme Court Act 1970(NSW)

Supreme Court Rules 1970(NSW)

Transport Administration Act 1988(NSW)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005(NSW)r 59.10(1)

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998(NSW)

Fair Work Act 2009(Cth)

Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998(NSW)

Residential Tenancies Act 1997(Vic)

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998(Vic)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013(NSW)

Migration Act 1958(Cth)

Cases Cited (492)

er - practical injustice - materiality ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - jurisdictional error or error of law - whether failure to give reasons amounts to jurisdictional error - constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction - denial of procedural fairness - February dispute orders void - March dispute orders not void Legislation Cited: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth), s 10 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Australian Courts Act 1828 (Imp), s 3 Bail Act 2013 (NSW), s 71 Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth), ss 6, 6A, 19 Commonwealth Constitution, Ch III; s 51(xxxv) Constitution Act 1902 (NSW), Pt 9 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), Pt 7; ss 78, 79 Criminal Justice Act 1967 (UK), s 61 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), s 109H Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 140, 144 Fair Work Act 2009 (NSW), ss 12, 19, 349, 363, 417, 546 Fines Act 1996 (NSW), s 4 Fire and Rescue NSW Act 1989 (NSW), ss 69, 70 Government and Related Employees' Tribunal Act 1980 (NSW), s 43 Government Sector Audit Act 1983 (NSW), s 33E Government Sector Employment Act 2013 (NSW), s 50 Health Services Act 1997 (NSW), ss 115, 116, 116H Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), ss 3C, 18E, 48K Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW), s 104 Industrial Arbitration (Special Provisions) Act 1984 (NSW) Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 (NSW), ss 84, 100 Industrial Relations (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Regulation 2014 (NSW), cls 6, 6A Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW), s 195 Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), Ch 2 Pt 6, Ch 3, Ch 4, Ch 6A; ss 3, 10, 13, 17, 19, 38, 84, 106, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 146, 147, 148, 152, 155, 156, 162, 163, 167, 169, 177, 179, 181A, 187, 188, 191, 355A, 355C, 355E, 357; Sch 4 cl 70(1) Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 531 Industrial Relations Amendment (Industrial Court) Act 2016 (NSW), Sch 1 cl 16 Industrial Relations Amendment Act 2005 (NSW) Industrial Relations Commission Rules 2009 (NSW), r 13.2 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 34, 35 Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW), Pt 11 Div 6; ss 208L, 208M Legal Profession Reform Act 1993 (NSW) Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (NSW), r 4 Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW), Pt 2 r 3.1 Police Act 1990 (NSW), s 85 Public Service Act 1979 (NSW), ss 65A, 116 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 23, 69, 75, 124 Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 72; Sch J Pt 1 cls 1, 2 (under the heading "Industrial Relations Act 1996") Teaching Service Act 1980 (NSW), s 12 Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW), ss 59, 68K Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 6.3, 59.3, 59.10 Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 327, 328 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s 170CG Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Cth) Cases Cited: A v New South Wales (2007) 230 CLR 500; [2007] HCA 10 AAI Ltd trading as GIO as agent for the Nominal Defendant v McGiffen (2016) 77 MVR 348; [2016] NSWCA 229 Aboud v State of New South Wales (Department of School Education) (1999) 92 IR 32 Ace Business Brokers Pty Ltd v Phillips-Treby (2000) 100 IR 420 Ahmad v R [2022] NSWCCA 144 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564; [1992] HCA 10 Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW (2020) 103 NSWLR 479; [2020] NSWCA 165 Ali v AAI Limited (2016) 75 MVR 502; [2016] NSWCA 110 Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Cervantes (2012) 61 MVR 443; [2012] NSWCA 244 Allplastics Engineering Pty Ltd v Dornoch Ltd [2006] NSWCA 33 Amalgamated Metal Workers Union v Electricity Commission (NSW) (1989) 28 IR 155 Ambulance Service of New South Wales v Buchtmann (2007) 160 IR 57; [2007] NSWIRComm 18 Ambulance Victoria v United Voice (2014) 245 IR 375; [2014] FCA 1119 Anderson Stuart v Treleavan (2000) 49 NSWLR 88 Antonakopoulos v State Bank of NSW (1999) 91 IR 385 Attorney-General (NSW) v Kennedy Miller Television Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 729 Attorney-General (SA) v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (The Bay Street Case) (2018) 260 FCR 564; [2018] FCA 83 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 3) [2017] FCA 10 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The Nine Brisbane Sites Appeal) (2019) 269 FCR 262; [2019] FCAFC 59 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2017) 254 FCR 68; [2017] FCAFC 113 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Hall (2018) 261 FCR 347; [2018] FCAFC 83 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Huddy [2017] FCA 739 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson (2022) 314 IR 301; [2022] HCA 13 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson (2019) 291 IR 286; [2019] FCA 1654 Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board v Federated Seamen's Union of A/asia (1925) 35 CLR 462 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Hillside (Australia New Media) Pty Ltd (t/as Bet365) (No 2) [2016] FCA 698 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (2016) 340 ALR 25; [2016] FCAFC 181 Australian Crime Commission v Marrapodi (2012) 42 WAR 351; [2012] WASCA 103 Australian Iron & Steel Ltd v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1959] AR (NSW) 329 Australian Iron & Steel Ltd v Federated Ironworkers Association [1950] AR (NSW) 629 Australian Iron & Steel Ltd v Federated Ironworkers Association [1961] AR (NSW) 304 Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, New South Wales Branch v Murawina Mt Druitt Co-op Ltd [2005] NSWIRComm 1017 Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd (2021) 310 IR 1; [2021] FWCFB 4808 Australian Salaried Medical Officers' Federation (NSW) v Secretary of Health [2018] NSWIRComm 1052 Australian Tramway Employees' Association v Prahran & Malvern Tramway Trust (Union Badge Case) (1913) 17 CLR 680 Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales v Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited (2006) 151 IR 153; [2006] NSWIRComm 71 Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353 Baker v Australian Workers Union [2006] NSWIRComm 1225 Banque Commerciale SA (in liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279 Barnier v Secretary, Department of Education [2021] NSWIRComm 1045 BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd (now known as BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd) and The Australian Workers' Union, NSW [2006] NSWIRComm 263 BHP Steel Ltd v The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales [2003] NSWIRComm 151 Big W Discount Stores v Donato (1995) 58 IR 239 Blacktown Workers Club Ltd v Harris (1999) 93 IR 226 Bluescope Steel (AIS) Ltd v Australian Workers' Union (NSW) (2005) 138 IR 324; [2005] NSWIRComm 99 Bluescope Steel (AIS) Ltd v AWU and Anor (No 2) [2005] NSWIRComm 210 Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales [2005] NSWIRComm 260 Bluescope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales [2006] NSWIRComm 274 BlueScope Steel Limited v Australian Workers' Union [2018] FCA 1574 Bluescope Steel Ltd v Australian Workers' Union, NSW (2004) 137 IR 176; [2004] NSWIRComm 222 Bluescope Steel Ltd v The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales [2006] NSWIRComm 338 Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143 Box Valley Pty Ltd v Price (2000) 97 IR 484 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Britton and Riverstone Public School [1999] NSWIRComm 181 Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512; [2001] HCA 29 Brooks v Upper Hunter County Council [1973] AR (NSW) 90 Building Construction Employees & Builders' Labourers Federation of New South Wales v Minister for Industrial Relations (1985) 1 NSWLR 197 Burge v NSW BHP Steel Pty Ltd (2001) 105 IR 325; [2001] NSWIRComm 117 Burwood Cinema Limited and Others v The Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees' Association (1925) 35 CLR 528 Byrne v Rail Corporation of NSW [2012] NSWIRComm 117 Cahill v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) (2008) 170 FCR 357; [2008] FCA 1292 Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd v Harmer (1999) 92 IR 264 Campbelltown City Council v Vegan (2006) 67 NSWLR 372 Canberra Cleaners Pty Ltd v Commissioner of ACT Revenue (2008) 336 FLR 1; [2018] ACTSC 208 Carlson v King (1947) 64 WN (NSW) 65 Cepus v Industrial Court of New South Wales and Anor (1995) 60 IR 113 CGEA Transport Ltd t/a Southtrans v Transport Workers Union of Australia (2001) 110 IR 211; [2001] NSWIRComm 287 City of Botany Bay v Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees' Union of Australia, New South Wales Division [2000] NSWIRComm 85 City of Sydney Wages/Salary Award 2014 (2014) 247 IR 386; [2014] NSWIRComm 49 Coles Supermarket (Australia) Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers (NSW Branch) [1997] NSWIRComm 24 Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 Commins v Massam (1642) 82 ER 473 Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association v Federated Seamen's Union of A/asia (1923) 33 CLR 297 Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (2015) 258 CLR 482; [2015] HCA 46 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Registered Organisations Commissioner (2020) 283 FCR 404; [2020] FCAFC 232 Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (the Non-Indemnification Personal Payment Case) (2018) 264 FCR 155; [2018] FCAFC 97 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (NSW) v Newcrest Mining Ltd (2005) 139 IR 50; [2005] NSWIRComm 23 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (1998) 89 FCR 200 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2015) 230 FCR 298; [2015] FCAFC 25 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Cahill (2010) 194 IR 461; [2010] FCAFC 39 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Clarke (2006) 149 IR 224; [2006] FCA 245 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Williams (2009) 191 IR 445; [2009] FCAFC 171 Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Crown Employees (Police Officers - 2009) Award (No 2) (2012) 220 IR 192; [2012] NSWIRComm 104 Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 Davis v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1998) 81 IR 364 Day v SAS Trustee Corporation [2021] NSWCA 71 Decottignies v NSW Department of Education and Training [2010] NSWIRComm 1014 Dignan v Australian Steamships Pty Ltd (1931) 45 CLR 188 Director General, NSW Department of Education and Training v NSW Teachers Federation [2010] NSWIRComm 44 Director General, NSW Department of Health and New South Wales Nurses Association (No 3) [2010] NSWIRComm 190 Director General, NSW Department of Health v New South Wales Nurses Association (No 2) [2010] NSWIRComm 163 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Robinson (2016) 241 FCR 338; [2016] FCA 525 Director-General of the New South Wales Department of Education and Communities v New South Wales Teachers Federation [2012] NSWIRComm 93 Director-General of the NSW Department of Education and Communities and Managing Director of TAFE NSW v New South Wales Teachers Federation [2012] NSWIRComm 58 Director-General, NSW Department of Education and Training v NSW Teachers Federation [2010] NSWIRComm 44 DNA17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 146 Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 73 ALD 321; [2003] HCA 26 Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan No 85305 [2019] NSWCATAP 229 East Melbourne Group Inc v Minister for Planning (2008) 23 VR 605; [2008] VSCA 217 Edwards v Justice Giudice (1999) 94 FCR 561 Electrical Trades Union of Australia v. BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Limited [2005] NSWIRComm 1065 Electricity Commission v Crump (1993) 48 IR 296 Entertainment Distributors Co Pty Ltd v Burnard (1993) 49 IR 446 Fair Work Ombudsman v Maritime Union of Australia [2017] FCA 1363 Fakhouri v Secretary for the NSW Ministry of Health [2022] NSWSC 233 Federal Airports Corporation v Aerolineas Argentinas (1997) 76 FCR 582 Federated Ironmakers Association v Commonwealth (1951) 84 CLR 265 Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, WA Branch v Nappy Happy Hire Pty Ltd t/as Nappy Happy Service (1994) 56 IR 62 Federation Insurance Ltd v Wasson (1987) 163 CLR 303 Fire & Rescue NSW on behalf of the Department of Premier and Cabinet v Fire Brigade Employees' Union of New South Wales (2013) 235 IR 261; [2013] NSWIRComm 63 Fire and Rescue NSW on behalf of Department of Premier and Cabinet v New South Wales Fire Brigade Employees' Union [2012] NSWIRComm 76 Fire Brigade Employees' Union of New South Wales v Fire and Rescue NSW [2014] NSWIRComm 16 Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies Limited [2000] 1 WLR 377; [1999] EWCA Civ 811 Forster v Jododex (1972) 127 CLR 421 Franklins Ltd v National Union of Workers (NSW Branch) (1997) 78 IR 289 Frugtniet v Attorney-General (NSW) (1997) 41 NSWLR 588 Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395; [1998] HCA 48 General Pants (Trading) Co Pty Ltd v Shonny (unreported, Full Commission of New South Wales, IRC 3123 of 1993, 8 September 1994) Gett v Tabet (2009) 254 ALR 504; [2009] NSWCA 76 Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 267 FCR 628; [2018] FCAFC 225 Harris v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1978) 45 FLR 469 Health Secretary v New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association [2022] NSWIRComm 1047 Health Secretary v New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association [2022] NSWIRComm 1071 Health Services Union NSW v Health Secretary [2017] NSWSC 1661 Hill v Director-General, Department of Education & Training (NSW) (1998) 85 IR 201 Hill v King (1993) 31 NSWLR 654 Hinton Demolitions Pty Ltd v Lower (No 2) (1971) 1 SASR 512 Hollingsworth v Commissioner of Police (1998) 47 NSWLR 104 Holmes a Court v Papaconstuntinos [2011] Aust Torts Reports 82-081; [2011] NSWCA 59 Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 264 CLR 123; [2018] HCA 34 Humphries v Cootamundra Ex Services and Citizens Memorial Club Ltd (2003) 128 IR 37; [2003] NSWIRComm 211 Hussmann Australia Pty Ltd v Walker (1993) 31 NSWLR 189 In the matter of Ming Tian Real Property Pty Ltd (2020) 145 ACSR 329; [2020] NSWSC 212 Industrial Relations Secretary v Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales [2022] NSWIRComm 1042 Industrial Relations Secretary v Public Service Association and Professional Officers Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales (2017) 93 NSWLR 723; [2017] NSWSC 71 Industrial Relations Secretary v Public Service Association and Professional Officers Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales (2021) 303 IR 322; [2021] NSWSC 160 Industrial Relations Secretary v Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 430 Inghams Enterprises v Iogha [2006] NSWSC 456 Insurance Australia Ltd (t/as NRMA Insurance) v Milton (2016) 77 MVR 78; [2016] NSWCA 156 John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v Printing Industry Employees Union [1963] AR (NSW) 97 John L Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) (1987) 163 CLR 508 King v State Bank of New South Wales (No 2) (2002) 126 IR 407; [2002] NSWIRComm 353 Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1 Knowles v Anglican Church Property Trust (No 2) (1999) 95 IR 380 Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 315 Krulow v Glamorgan Spring Bay Council (2013) 23 Tas R 264; [2013] TASFC 11 Latham v Singleton [1981] 2 NSWLR 843 Lee v Energy Australia (No 4) [2011] NSWIRComm 120 Li v Attorney General for New South Wales (2019) 99 NSWLR 630; [2019] NSWCA 95 Lord v Flight Centre Ltd (No 2) (2006) 156 IR 420; [2006] NSWIRComm 282 Lord v Flight Centre Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 188 Mahenthirarasa v State Rail Authority (NSW) (No 2) (2008) 72 NSWLR 273; [2008] NSWCA 201 Margaritte Joanne Colefax v Secretary, Department of Education (No 3) [2019] NSWIRComm 1000 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Marroun v State Transit Authority [2016] NSWSC 1830 McKernan v Fraser (1931) 46 CLR 343 Melbourne Steamship Company Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 Metropolitan Coal Co of Sydney Ltd v Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation (1917) 24 CLR 85 Metropolitan Gas Co v Federated Gas Employees' Industrial Union (1925) 35 CLR 449 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597; [2002] HCA 11 Monier PGH (Holdings) Ltd v Horsey ( 1998) 86 IR 63 Monk v Dow Corning Australia Pty Ltd [1984] 2 NSWLR 485 Moore v Doyle (1969) 15 FLR 59 Moray v Federated Engine Drivers & Firemen's Union [1963] AR (NSW) 830 Morrison v Milner (2009) 181 IR 443; [2009] NSWIRComm 57 Moylan v Nutrasweet [2000] NSWCA 337 Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94 MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021) 390 ALR 590; [2021] HCA 17 New South Wales Department of Education v New South Wales Teachers Federation (2010) 194 IR 340; [2010] NSWIRComm 55 New South Wales Fire Brigade Employees Union and Fire and Rescue NSW on behalf of the Director Public Employment [2012] NSWIRComm 1002 New South Wales Independent Teachers' Association v St Aloysius College [1976] AR (NSW) 91 New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Orr (2019) 100 NSWLR 578; [2019] NSWCA 231 Nguyen v Nguyen (1990) 169 CLR 245 NH v Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) (2016) 260 CLR 546; [2016] HCA 33 Notification under section 130 by the NSW Department of Community Services of a dispute with the Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales; Re Workbans [2000] NSWIRComm 66 NSW Department of Education and Training v NSW Teachers Federation; Re Student Reports Bans (2006) 157 IR 329; [2006] NSWIRComm 346 NSW Teachers' Federation v NSW Department of Education and Training (2000) 100 IR 441; [2000] NSWIRComm 169 Osmond v Public Service Board (NSW) [1983] 1 NSWLR 691 Osmond v Public Service Board (NSW) [1984] 3 NSWLR 447 Outboard World Pty Ltd v Muir (1993) 51 IR 167 Pattinson v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (2020) 282 FCR 580; [2020] FCAFC 177 PDS Rural Products v Corthorn (1987) 19 IR 153 Perrott v XcelleNet Australia Ltd (1998) 84 IR 255 Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 Pirrie v McFarlane (1925) 36 CLR 170 Plaintiff M76/2013 v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship (2013) 251 CLR 322; [2013] HCA 53 Police Association of New South Wales v Commissioner of Police [2019] NSWIRComm 1076 Police v Stacy (2016) 125 SASR 50; [2016] SASC 54 Proctor v Jetway Aviation Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 166 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd (2015) 258 CLR 1; [2015] HCA 36 Public Employment Office v The NSW Fire Brigade Employees Union [1999] NSWIRComm 556 Public Service Association and Professional Officers Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales v Roads and Maritime Services (2015) 250 IR 412; [2015] NSWIRComm 16 Public Service Association and Professional Officers Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales on behalf of Pearcey, Barnett and Woelfl v Department of Attorney General and Justice - Corrective Services NSW [2012] NSWIRComm 33 Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union (NSW) v Secretary of the Treasury (2014) 242 IR 318; [2014] NSWCA 112 Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union (NSW) (on behalf of Rosanna Ganino) v Roads and Maritime Services [2013] NSWIRComm 106 Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales v Industrial Relations Secretary of New South Wales (2021) 306 IR 89; [2021] NSWCA 64 Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of NSW South Wales v Secretary for Industrial Relations [2018] NSWIRComm 1061 Public Service Association of South Australia Inc v Industrial Relations Commission (SA) (2012) 249 CLR 398; [2012] HCA 25 Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656; [1986] HCA 7 Public Service Board v NSW Teachers Federation [1969] AR (NSW) 21 Question of Law Reserved on Acquittal (No 5 of 1999) (2000) 76 SASR 356; [2000] SASC 51 Quinn v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (2021) 106 NSWLR 154; [2021] NSWCA 294 Qureshi v De Haas (No 2) [2009] NSWIRComm 139 R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13 R v Bowen; Ex parte Amalgamated Metal Workers' and Shipwrights' Union (1980) 144 CLR 462 R v Cawthorne; Ex parte Federated Clerks Union of Australia (South Australia Branch) (1979) 22 SASR 433 R v Civil Service Appeal Board, Ex parte Cunningham [1992] ICR 816 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 R v Gamble [1983] 3 NSWLR 356 R v Industrial Appeals Court; Ex parte Maher [1978] VR 126 R v Mosely (1992) 28 NSWLR 735 R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39 R v Rayment (2010) 200 A Crim R 48; [2010] NSWCCA 85 R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 152 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 Re Australian Bank Employees Union; Ex parte Citicorp Australia Ltd (1989) 167 CLR 513 Re Australian Railways Union; Ex parte Public Transport Corporation (1993) 51 IR 22; [1993] HCA 28 Re Club Employees (State) Award (2002) 122 IR 272; [2002] NSWIRComm 362 Re Crown Employees (Teachers in Schools and TAFE and Related Employees) Salaries and Conditions Award (2004) 133 IR 254; [2004] NSWIRComm 114 Re Ferguson; Public Service Association (NSW) v Public Service Board (NSW) (1988) 25 IR 148 Re Health and Community Employees Psychologists (State) Award (2001) 109 IR 458; [2001] NSWIRComm 302 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57; [2001] HCA 22 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme (2003) 216 CLR 212; [2003] HCA 56 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1; [2003] HCA 6 Re Operational Ambulance Officers (State) Award (2001) 113 IR 384; [2001] NSWIRComm 331 Re Operational Ambulance Officers (State) Award (No 4) (2016) 255 IR 193; [2016] NSWIRComm 2 Re Optimisation Australia Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 31 Re Pastoral Industry (State) Award; Application by Australian Business Industrial for a new award and another matter (2001) 104 IR 168; [2001] NSWIRComm 27 Re Printing and Allied Trades Employers Association of New South Wales [2014] NSWIC 6 Re Storeworkers - IGA Distribution Pty Ltd New South Wales Distribution Centres Award 2002 (2002) 124 IR 1; [2002] NSWIRComm 156 Redmond v Director General, NSW Department of Health, on behalf of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales [2012] NSWIRComm 147 Reich v Client Server Professionals of Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 49 NSWLR 551; [2000] NSWIRComm 143 Resarta Pty Ltd v Finemore (2002) 55 NSWLR 320; [2002] NSWCA 250 Resource Pacific Pty Ltd v Wilkinson [2013] NSWCA 33 Richens v Tresilian & Dun (1993) 32 NSWLR 301 Riverina Wines Pty Ltd v Registrar of the Workers Compensation Commission of NSW & Ors [2007] NSWCA 149 Rodger v De Gelder (2015) 71 MVR 514; [2015] NSWCA 211 Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 Rowe v Transport Workers' Union of Australia (1998) 90 FCR 95 Royer v Western Australia (2009) 197 A Crim R 319; [2009] WASCA 139 Sasterawan v Morris [2008] NSWCA 70 Secretary Department of Education v Australian Education Union of New South Wales Teachers Federation Branch [2022] NSWIRComm 1051 Secretary for The Treasury v Public Service Association & Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of NSW (2014) 89 NSWLR 688; [2014] NSWCA 138 Secretary NSW Department of Education v The Australian Education Union New South Wales Teachers Federation Branch [2022] NSWSC 263 Secretary of the Department of Education v Australian Education Union of New South Wales Teachers Federation Branch [2022] NSWIRComm 1049 Secretary, Ministry of Health in respect of Hunter New England Local Health District and New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association [2021] NSWIRComm 1046 Seiffert v Prisoners Review Board [2011] WASCA 148 Shaw v Deputy Registrar Buljan [2016] FCA 829 Skilled Engineering Limited v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (2001) 108 IR 116; [2001] FCA 1397 Soliman v University of Technology Sydney (2012) 207 FCR 277; [2012] FCAFC 146 Solution 6 Holdings Ltd v Industrial Relations Commission (NSW) (2004) 60 NSWLR 558; [2004] NSWCA 200 Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 Sparks v Hobson; Gray v Hobson (2018) 361 ALR 115; [2018] NSWCA 29 Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2021] NSWCA 337 State Super SAS Trustee Corporation v Cornes [2013] NSWCA 257 State Wage Case 1983 (1983) 5 IR 1 State Wage Case 1999 (1999) 88 IR 363 State Wage Case 2022 [2022] NSWIRComm 1081 Stegbar Pty Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of New South Wales (2008) 173 IR 350; [2008] NSWIRComm 104 Stemp v Australian Glass Manufacturers Co Ltd (1917) 23 CLR 226 Strathfield Group Ltd v Hall (2002) 121 IR 158; [2002] NSWIRComm 373 Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd v Massoud [1989] VR 8 Sutton v BE Australia WD Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 689 Sydney Water Corporation v Australian Services Union (NSW and ACT Branch) (2005) 146 IR 388; [2005] NSWIRComm 305 Taudevin v Egis Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (2001) 131 IR 124; [2001] NSWIRComm 340 Taylor v Environment Protection Authority (2000) 50 NSWLR 48 TD Preece & Co Pty Ltd v Industrial Court (NSW) (2008) 177 IR 172; [2008] NSWCA 285 Terry v Huntington (1679) 145 ER 557 The Director-General, NSW Department of Health, in respect of the Hunter New England Area Health Service and Australian Medical Association (NSW) Limited (2008) 182 IR 353; [2008] NSWIRComm 112 The Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated (NSW) v Director of Public Employment (2012) 250 CLR 343; [2012] HCA 58 The Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v Burgess Brothers Ltd (1916) 21 CLR 129 Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 TKWY v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46 Tonab Investments Pty Ltd v Optima Developments Pty Ltd (2015) 90 NSWLR 268; [2015] NSWCA 287 Totalisator Agency Board of New South Wales v Casey (1994) 54 IR 354 Transport for NSW v Chapoterera [2022] NSWSC 976 Transport Industry - General Carriers Contract Determination (2016) 257 IR 294; [2016] NSWIRComm 3 Transport Secretary v The Australian Workers' Union, New South Wales [2022] NSWIRComm 1053 Transport Workers Union of NSW v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2008) 166 FCR 108; [2008] FCAFC 26 Transport Workers' Union of New South Wales v TNT Australia Pty Ltd (2006) 154 IR 256 Twohill v Mental As Anything Touring Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] NSWIRComm 17 Van Huisstede v Commissioner of Police (2000) 98 IR 57; [2000] NSWIRComm 97 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 viagogo AG v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2022] FCAFC 87 Waddell v Australian Workers' Union (1922) 30 CLR 570 WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 236 FCR 593 Walker v Industrial Court of New South Wales (1994) 53 IR 121 Walsh v Sainsbury (1926) 36 CLR 464 Wattie v Industrial Relations Secretary on behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Justice (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 124 Webb v Goulburn Masonic Village (2004) 136 IR 309; [2004] NSWIRComm 258 Western Suburbs District Ambulance Committee v Tipping [1957] AR (NSW) 273 Wheatley v Federated Ironworkers Association (1959) 60 SR (NSW) 161 at 180; (1959) 76 WN (NSW) 727 Widgee Shire Council v Bonney (1907) 4 CLR 977 Williams v Hursey (1959) 103 CLR 30 Wingecarribee Shire Council v Uri Turgeman trading as Uri T Design [2018] NSWLEC 146 Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak (2013) 252 CLR 480; [2013] HCA 43 Witthahn v Chief Executive of Hospital and Health Services (2021) 312 IR 314; [2021] QCA 282 Wood v Boral Resources (NSW) Pty Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, No 4980 of 1992, 28 October 1993) Xian v Rail Corporation New South Wales [2009] NSWIRComm 1083 Xuereb v Viola (1989) 18 NSWLR 453 XX v Attorney General of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 658 Zweck v Town of Gawler (2015) 124 SASR 319; [2015] SASCFC 172 Texts Cited: Amnon Rubinstein, Jurisdiction and Illegality (Clarendon Press, 1965) Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150, entered into force 22 April 1954), art 1A Edward I Sykes, 'The Hursey Case: Part 1; The Trade Union Aspect' (1960) 33 Australian Law Journal at page 432 Enid Campbell, 'Collateral Challenge of the Validity of Governmental Action' (1998) 24 Monash University Law Review 272 Harold Weintraub, "English Origins of Judicial Review by Prerogative Writ: Certiorari and Mandamus" (1963) 9 New York Law Forum 478 HB Higgins, A New Province for Law and Order (Constable, 1922) Industrial Relations Commission, "Contact Us" (accessed 4 August 2022) Justice Margaret J Beazley (as Her Excellency then was), Paul T Vout and Sally E Fitzgerald, Appeals and Appellate Courts in Australia and New Zealand (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2014) Justice Mark Leeming, Authority to Decide: The Law of Jurisdiction in Australia (Federation Press, 2nd ed, 2020) Mark Aronson, 'Criteria for Restricting Collateral Challenge' (1998) 9 Public Law Review 237 Mark Aronson, Matthew Groves and Greg Weeks, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability (Lawbook, 6th ed, 2017) Michael Gillooly and Nii Lante Wallace-Bruce, "Civil Penalties in Australian Legislation" (1994) 13(2) University of Tasmania Law Review 269 New South Wales, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, on 17 April 1996, 21 September 2016 and 11 October 2016 Public Health System Nurses' and Midwives' (State) Award 2021 (NSW), cl 53 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Supreme Court Practice Note SC CL 3 William Paley, The Law and Practice of Summary Convictions on Penal Statutes by Justices of the Peace (S. Sweet, 2nd ed, 1827) William Wade, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 5th ed, 1982) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Secretary of the Ministry of Health (Prosecutor) The New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: V Bulut (Prosecutor) P Boncardo (Defendant)

Cited By (32)

Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union v Aurizon Operations Ltd

Blacktown City Council v United Services Union

Commissioner of Police v Fordyce

Dickson v Commonwealth; Dickson v Director of Public Prosecutions

Dietz v Health Secretary in respect of the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District

Fantoni v Secretary of the Department of Education; Secretary of the Department of Education v Fantoni

Fire Brigade Employees' Union of New South Wales v Industrial Relations Secretary of NSW on behalf of Fire and Rescue NSW

Headnote [This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment.] The defendant, The New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association, represents nurses and midwives employed in the NSW Health Service. The defendant organised strikes that occurred on 15 February and 31 March 2022. On those days, members of the Association and employees of the Health Service took industrial action by stopping work. In the lead up to both those strikes, the prosecutor, the Secretary of the Ministry of Health, notified the Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") of an industrial dispute and then sought dispute orders that the defendant, its officers, employees and members cease and refrain from taking industrial action. On 14 February and 25 March 2022, the Commission made dispute orders that, amongst other things, ordered the Association the cease organising and taking industrial action ("the February Orders" and "the March Orders", respectively). On both occasions, evidence was put and submissions were made by both the prosecutor and defendant to the Commission but the Commissioner did not give any reasons. The prosecutor initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court and alleged that the defendant committed ten contraventions of the Commission's dispute orders and sought penalties under s 139 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 ("the Act"). The defendant challenged the legal validity of the February and March Orders on the grounds that the orders were vitiated by jurisdictional error because no reasons were given and the Commissioner failed to respond to a substantial, clearly articulated argument made by the defendant. The defendant also challenged some of the pleaded contraventions on the ground that the particulars could not establish breaches of the orders or that the defendant could not lawfully take industrial action. The Court (Walton J) held: Collateral Attack 1. An attack on the validity of an order, certificate or decision is not to be characterised as a collateral attack if determining the attack is necessary for the court or tribunal to determine whether it has jurisdiction to decide the broader claim brought before it. Where an attack on the validity of an order, certificate or decision does not go to the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal, it can be properly characterised as a collateral attack: at [178]. Director of Housing v Sudi (2011) 33 VR 559; [2011] VSCA 266; Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan 83505 [2020] NSWCA 327, considered. Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler (1999) 197 CLR 83; [1999] HCA 28; Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69; [1997] HCA 49;, referred to. 1. The attacks by the defendant on the validity of the dispute orders are properly to be characterised as a collateral attack because the existence of legally valid dispute orders is not a precondition to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under s 139 of the Act: at [180]. Franklins Ltd v National Union of Workers (NSW Branch) (1997) 78 IR 289; Secretary, NSW Department of Education v The Australian Education Union New South Wales Teachers Federation (NSWTF) Branch [2021] NSWSC 1628, followed. Dyldam Developments Pty Ltd v The Owners - Strata Plan 83505 [2020] NSWCA 327, considered and distinguished The Validity of the Dispute Orders 1. Although there is no free-standing common law duty to give reasons for making a statutory decision, "special circumstances" existed such that the Commission was under an implied statutory obligation to give reasons in arbitration when making dispute orders: at [366]. Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656; [1986] HCA 7, considered and distinguished. New South Wales Fire Brigade Employees Union and Fire and Rescue NSW on behalf of the Director Public Employment [2012] NSWIRComm 1002, considered and affirmed. Anderson Stuart v Treleavan (2000) 49 NSWLR 88; Attorney-General (NSW) v Kennedy Miller Television Pty Ltd (1998) 43 NSWLR 729; Campbelltown City Council v Vegan (2006) 67 NSWLR 372; [2006] NSWCA 284; Entertainment Distributors Co Pty Ltd v Burnard (1993) 49 IR 446; Lord v Flight Centre Ltd (No 2) (2006) 156 IR 420; [2006] NSWIRComm 282; Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376; Xuereb v Viola (1989) 18 NSWLR 453; Webb v Goulburn Masonic Village (2004) 136 IR 309; [2004] NSWIRComm 258, referred to. Inghams Enterprises v Iogha [2006] NSWSC 456, distinguished. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531; R v Civil Service Appeal Board, Ex parte Cunningham [1992] ICR 816, not followed. 1. The failure of the Commission to give reasons was an error of law within jurisdiction. The provision of reasons is not a precondition to the valid exercise of the Commission's power to make dispute orders. The failure of the Commission to provide reasons is an error of law but, without more, does not amount to jurisdictional error: at [431], [433]. Li v Attorney General for New South Wales (2019) 99 NSWLR 630; [2019] NSWCA 95, considered. Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union (NSW) v Secretary of the Treasury (2014) 242 IR 318; [2014] NSWCA 112; Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme (2003) 216 CLR 212; [2003] HCA 56; Seiffert v Prisoners Review Board [2011] WASCA 148; Soliman v University of Technology Sydney (2012) 207 FCR 277; [2012] FCAFC 146, referred to. 1. A dialogue between the Bench and parties in the course of argument will usually not amount to consideration or response to a substantial, clearly articulated argument. This will usually depend on the formality of proceedings and regard may be had to the practice of the Commission: at [458]-[459]. Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Cervantes (2012) 61 MVR 443; [2012] NSWCA 244; Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 73 ALD 321; [2003] HCA 26; PDS Rural Products v Corthorn (1987) 19 IR 153; Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57; [2001] HCA 22; Re Pastoral Industry Award (2001) 104 IR 168; [2001] NSWIRComm 27; Transport Industry - General Carriers Contract Determination (2016) 257 IR 294; [2016] NSWIRComm 3, referred to. 1. In the First Dispute, the defendant made two substantial, clearly articulated arguments against the making of dispute orders. The Commission's failure to respond to these contentions amounted to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction and thus jurisdictional error. Therefore, the February Orders are void. Pleaded contraventions A and B, which alleged contraventions of the February Orders, must be dismissed: at [490]-[492]. 2. In the Second Dispute, the defendant's arguments were not substantial and there is not a real possibility that the Commission could have reached a different outcome if the arguments were fully considered. There was no jurisdictional error made out with the March Orders: at [519], [522]. Contraventions 1. The particulars under pleaded contraventions C to I established that the defendant contravened the March Orders by organising industrial action and inducing, advising, authorising, supporting, encouraging, directing, aiding or abetting members to take or organise industrial action: at [573], [583], [589]. 2. The particulars under pleaded contravention J were not capable of establishing that the defendant contravened the March Orders by failing to refrain from taking industrial action. Pleaded contravention J must be dismissed: at [605]. Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Hall (2018) 261 FCR 347; [2018] FCAFC 83; Banque Commerciale SA (in liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; Taylor v Environment Protection Authority (2000) 50 NSWLR 48, referred to. 1. Discussion of whether a union is legally capable of "taking" industrial action: at [606]-[669]. Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board v Federated Seamen's Union of A/asia (1925) 35 CLR 46; Australian Tramway Employees' Association v Prahran & Malvern Tramway Trust (Union Badge Case) (1913) 17 CLR 680; Bluescope Steel Ltd v Australian Workers' Union, NSW (2004) 137 IR 176; [2004] NSWIRComm 222; Burwood Cinema Limited and Others v The Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees' Association (1925) 35 CLR 528; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Clarke (2006) 149 IR 224; [2006] FCA 245; Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemen's Association of A/asia v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1911) 12 CLR 398; Federated Ironmakers Association v Commonwealth (1951) 84 CLR 265; Moore v Doyle (1969) 15 FLR 59; Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales v Industrial Relations Secretary (2018) 96 NSWLR 762; [2018] NSWCA 39; R v Bowen; Ex parte Amalgamated Metal Workers' and Shipwrights' Union (1980) 144 CLR 462; Rowe v Transport Workers' Union of Australia (1998) 90 FCR 95; Secretary NSW Department of Education v The Australian Education Union New South Wales Teachers Federation Branch [2022] NSWSC 263; Stemp v Australian Glass Manufacturers Co Ltd (1917) 23 CLR 226; Wheatley v Federated Ironworkers Association (1959) 60 SR (NSW) 161; Williams v Hursey (1959) 103 CLR 30, referred to. Appropriate Penalty 1. There are some differences between the statutory context of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Act such that the principles in Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson (2022) 314 IR 301; [2022] HCA 13 are not entirely applicable. Nevertheless, deterrence is a strong and significant factor in determining the appropriate penalty: at [727]-[739]. Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson (2022) 314 IR 301; [2022] HCA 13, considered. 1. The defendant made a conscious decision to flagrantly defy the orders of the Commission. However, the evidence shows that the defendant took steps to minimise the impact of their strike action on patients. The disruption caused to the public health system was substantial and some patients and employees were put at risk. The defendant is a good industrial citizen with no prior contraventions: at [811]-[854].