s.739 - Dispute resolution

United Firefighters Union of Australia (Victorian Branch)

Alleged dispute about a matter arising under an enterprise agreement - application for interim orders - s.589(2) - application dismissed.

• [1] The United Firefighters Union of Australia (Victorian Branch) (UFU) has made an application under s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) and the dispute resolution procedures in clause 21 (Division A) and clause 26 (Division B) of the Fire Rescue Victoria Operational Employees Interim Enterprise Agreement 2020 (the Agreement),[1] through which it seeks a procedural or interim decision in relation to a dispute it has with Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV).

• [2] The dispute concerns a decision made by FRV to pause and restart the Station Officer (SO) Promotions Course 8 process which had commenced when Commissioner Gavin Freeman issued a memorandum[2] on 13 June 2025 (Memorandum).

• [3] The Memorandum outlined a three-stage selection process for the SO Promotions Course 8:

1. Stage one required applicants to undertake a written assessment on 19 August 2025 comprising a combination of multiple choice and short written questions/responses to be completed in two 60-minute sessions separated by a 15-minute break. The 70 highest ranking candidates with a minimum score of 70% were to be eligible for the next stage.

1. Stage two involved Command and Control assessments to be conducted in September 2025, with candidates required to again achieve a minimum score of 70% in order to be eligible for the next stage.

1. Stage three was to be the interview stage and conducted in November 2025, during which candidates would be required to achieve a minimum score of 50% to be placed on an order of merit.

• [4] At the conclusion of Stage three, applicants were to be ranked in the order of merit based on their final score, which was to be determined by their performance in all three stages. The order of merit would then be used as the basis for offering places on the SO Promotions Course 8, which was to run for 16 weeks from 9 February 2026.

• [5] The UFU asserts that this process was "the consistent and transparent harmonised selection process" that had previously been considered and approved by the Operations Consultative Committee.

• [6] Approximately 232 Leading Firefighters applied for SO Promotions Course 8. The Stage one written assessment was conducted on 19 August 2025 and the 70 top candidates from this underwent the Stage two Command and Control assessment. For the 59 who passed successfully through this, Stage three interviews were arranged to commence from 20 October 2025.

• [7] Four candidates raised grievances in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures in the Agreements regarding the conduct of the Stage one written assessment component. Their grievances were, in essence, that FRV had failed to adhere to its own selection and application procedures outlined in the Memorandum and the Station Officer Course Guide v2.4 (Course Guide). The timing of the lodgement of each of these grievances was as follows:

• [8] At 12.16pm on 23 October 2025, Ms Brehanna Cole, Recruitment Business Partner for FRV, wrote to all candidates on behalf of FRV Deputy Secretary Mr Tony Matthews. In doing so, Ms Cole informed the candidates that a number of "integrity issues" had been raised about SO Promotions Course 8, including irregularities in written assessment results and feedback expressing concern about the conduct of the process. Ms Cole advised that these matters would be subjected to further review but that in order to "maintain trust and confidence" in FRV's promotional and recruitment processes, FRV's Executive Leadership Team (ELT) had made the decision to "stop and restart" the process for SO Promotions Course 8. Ms Cole explained that all assessments would be re-run and previous results would not be carried forward.

• [9] At 12.28pm on 23 October 2025, Mr Matthews also issued a communique to this effect confirming the ELT's decision to "stop and restart" the process.

• [10] In addition, at 12.31pm on 23 October 2025, Mr Matthews sent a letter dated 23 October 2023 to the UFU's Branch Secretary, Mr Peter Marshall. In this letter, Mr Matthews described the integrity issues as "serious" and described them as relating to irregularities in the written assessment results and aspects of process governance which had the potential "to undermine confidence in the fairness and transparency of the overall selection process." Mr Matthews outlined that FRV had received feedback "from multiple applicants expressing concerns regarding procedural consistency, communication, and perceived equity." He then described the ELT's decision as a "pause and restart" which would involve FRV recommencing the process from the beginning "with strengthened oversight and quality assurance measures." Mr Matthews committed to communicating all relevant details of the revised schedule for the assessments and interviews to the affected employees when it had been developed.

• [11] At this point in time, it would appear that at least three of the four grievances lodged by the individuals had progressed to Step 3 of the dispute resolution process.

• [12] At 12.51pm on 23 October 2025, the UFU notified Acting Commissioner Cowling of FRV by email of its grievance at Step 1 of the dispute resolution procedures relating to "the unilateral decision of FRV executive management to stop the SO Course 8 pre-entry process and restart the process" (emphasis in original). The UFU indicated that it was aware of the grievances lodged by the four individuals and also made reference to "a further grievance...with respect to a further breach of the Enterprise Agreement and purported 'investigation' commenced by Melanie Dare of Fire Rescue Victoria." The UFU also sought immediate undertakings from FRV and requested a response by 5.00pm that day, failing which it would escalate the grievance to Step 2. The foreshadowed escalation duly eventuated at 5.16pm on 23 October 2025.

• [13] At 4.30pm on 24 October 2025, FRV sent a letter of the same date to the UFU with the reference 25OOC-133 FRV Letter to UFU RE SO Promotions. While a copy of this letter was not before the Fair Work Commission (Commission),[3] it nonetheless appears to have prompted the UFU to escalate its grievance in relation to the "SO Course 8 Pre-Entry process" to Step 3 of the dispute resolution procedures. This was conveyed in an email from the UFU to FRV sent at 5.00pm on 24 October 2025, which included the following:

"We note that Acting Commissioner Cowling's language has now changed to reference to a "pause" or "suspension" of the process, rather than a "stop". In the context of FRV's executive management's transparency and accountability, please clarify FRV's position: Does FRV intend to "pause" or suspend the process or does FRV intend to "stop" and "restart" from the very beginning?

The correspondence also fails to provide any further information or clarification for the UFU and its members.

We, again, request FRV provide undertakings that:

1. FRV will withdraw its communique to UFU members/FRV employees and letter to the United Firefighters Union;

2. FRV will abide by the Status Quo that the Station Officer Course 8 pre-entry process

3. That the four grievances that have been notified will be properly processed in accordance with the Dispute Resolution steps of the Enterprise Agreement."

• [14] At 5.41pm on 29 October 2025, Mr Matthews sent an email to the SO Promotions Course 8 candidates in which he advised that FRV, after some consideration, had determined that the SO Promotions Course 8 would instead be paused "but not yet restarted or recommenced", pending the outcome of an ongoing review.

• [15] A letter dated 29 October 2024 was also sent by FRV to the UFU and included the following:

"...FRV has determined that SO Course 8 will be paused, but not yet restarted or recommenced, pending investigation of the integrity concerns. This decision reflects Fire Rescue Victoria's (FRV) commitment to ensuring the integrity, fairness, and transparency of our promotion processes is consistent with our statutory obligations under the Public Administration Act 2004, the Fire Rescue Victoria Act 1958 (FRV Act), and the Fire Rescue Victoria (General) Regulations 2020 (FRV Regulations), all of which require FRV to uphold merit-based, fair, and transparent recruitment and promotion practices, and ensures maintenance of the status quo whilst the relevant disputes and grievances are resolved."

• [16] FRV declined to provide the undertaking sought by the UFU. In an email sent at 4.55pm on 30 October 2025, the UFU escalated the grievance to Step 4 in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures. On 6 November 2025, representatives of the UFU met with representatives of FRV. The dispute did not resolve and at 11.33am on 12 November 2025, the UFU's Form F10-Application for the FWC to deal with a dispute in accordance with a dispute settlement procedure (Form F10) was filed with the Commission.

• [17] Also on 12 November 2025, the lawyers for FRV engaged Workdynamic Australia to conduct a review "into the integrity of FRV's 2025 Station Officer Promotions Course."

• [18] As regards the disputes raised by the four candidates, they had each progressed to Step 4 by 19 November 2025 and the Step 4 meetings appear to have taken place on 3 December 2025. FRV's position is that these disputes remain unresolved but each of the four candidates had agreed to put further agitation on hold pending the outcomes of the UFU's dispute and the review being undertaken.[4] The UFU characterised what this meeting had covered in a different way.[5]

• [19] In the Form F10, the UFU asserted that the action by FRV to "stop and restart" or "pause and restart" the SO Promotions Course 8 process involved implementation of change in matters affecting the application or operation of the Agreement and which pertain to employment relationship in workplaces covered by the Agreement. Further, the UFU asserted that change occurred despite FRV's failure to consult with the UFU with respect to that change. Having notified FRV Acting Commissioner Cowling of its dispute on 23 October 2025, the UFU contended that FRV has not complied with the requirement under the dispute resolution procedures to apply the status quo, being the existing situation or practice that existed immediately prior to the subject matter of the grievance or dispute occurring, on the basis that it has failed or refused to reschedule the Stage 3 interviews.

• [20] On 15 December 2025, the UFU filed an application for an interim decision/order pursuant to s.589 of the Act seeking an order that interviews of the 59 candidates who have been assessed as successfully completing the Stage 1 written assessment and Stage 2 Command and Control assessment proceed and be completed before the end of January 2026, in accordance with Stage 3 of the selection process for the SO Promotions Course 8.

• [21] The UFU submitted the dispute is within the parameters of Step 5 of the dispute resolution procedures and that the Commission has jurisdiction because it has raised a dispute about the introduction of change within the meaning of clauses 17 of Division A and 22 of Division B and a failure to consult in accordance with clauses 16 of Division A and 21 of Division B. In addition, the UFU submitted there is a dispute about the application of the status quo clauses in the Agreement (clauses 21.4 of Division A and 26.1 of Division B).

• [22] The UFU also submitted that the decision of FRV (whether the decision was to pause and restart or to pause only) was a matter pertaining to the employment relationship which enlivened the consultation obligations because it related to the process by which employees are recruited. The UFU emphasised that even if the FRV decision did not enliven the obligation to consult under the introduction of change clauses (clauses 17 of Division A and 22 of Division B), the change FRV wishes to implement was one pertaining to the employment relationship and is captured by terms of the dispute resolution clauses themselves.

• [23] As to the objection outlined within the FRV's written submissions that the Commission does not presently have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute because the UFU had not raised the failure to consult in the course of the steps taken under the dispute resolution procedure, the UFU submitted that until the FRV's written submissions had been submitted, it had not been on notice that there was a jurisdictional objection. Moreover, the UFU submitted that it is not a correct characterisation of the dispute to assert that the UFU failed to raise FRV's failure to consult. In this regard, the UFU relies upon references and complaints about the unilateral decision that had been made when its dispute was first raised on 23 October 2025. The UFU also submitted that disputes may evolve over time and the characterisation and nature of a dispute in the Commission is not confined to that which is filed in the Form F10. The UFU otherwise observed that even if the Commission were not seized with jurisdiction to deal with the UFU's dispute about a failure to consult, no jurisdictional issue had been raised by FRV with respect to the status quo dispute.

• [24] The UFU submitted that there was no contest in relation to the propositions that the Commission has a power to make the interim order sought pursuant to section 589(2) of the Act and that the test for determining whether that order ought be made is governed by the common law test involving serious questions to be tried and the balance of convenience.

• [25] Turning to its contention that there is a serious question to be tried relating to the asserted failures to consult and to maintain the status quo, the UFU relied on evidence of Assistant Chief Fire Officer (ACFO) Edvardas Starinskas. ACFO Starinskas' evidence included an account of the process by which the UFU asserts the selection process for SO Promotions Course was developed, including that:

1. The three-stage selection process had been outlined in a memorandum which formed part of a recommendation he put to the Operations Consultative Committee for the harmonisation of the FRV Station Officer Promotional process; and

1. He subsequently provided a report back to the Operational Consultative Committee on 11 October 2023 that the implementation had been successful.

• [26] The UFU further relied on the statements within the Memorandum, "Selection process: a three-stage selection process will apply" and "Interviews will be conducted in November 2025" and submitted this was the process upon which consultation had occurred and was agreed, and that it was a manifestation of the process agreed by the Consultative Committee in 2023. The UFU further submitted this was clearly a matter pertaining to the employment relationship.

• [27] The UFU submitted that while the dates outlined in the Memorandum were not the subject of express agreement through the Consultative Committee, the departure from them in the form of the pause, involves a change in matters affecting the application or operation of "this Division", and is a change pertaining to the employment relationship.

• [28] The UFU's assertion that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether substantive relief should be granted because of the failure of FRV to consult is underpinned by relying on evidence from ACFO Starinskas that:

1. If the SO Promotions Course 8 interviews don't proceed by the end of January 2026, the course won't start on 9 February 2026 and nor will it be possible for it to start until the second half of 2026; and

1. Delaying SO Promotions Course 8 would be of significant detriment for FRV and the Victorian community because there is a current shortage of station officers in FRV, leading to response capability issues and increased financial implications for FRV.

• [29] The UFU submitted that a delay in conducting SO Promotions Course 8 will impact on the operational capability of FRV and has implications for the workforce, which are matters pertaining to the employment relationship.

• [30] Noting that the status quo provisions in the Agreement are expressed as "the existing situation or practice that existed immediately prior to the subject matter of the grievance or dispute occurring", the UFU asserted that the existing situation or practice that existed immediately prior to the decision of FRV to stop/pause/restart the SO Promotions Course 8 process was that the 59 candidates who successfully passed the Stage two Command and Control assessment were being given times and dates for their Stage three interviews and FRV was proceeding with Stage 3 ahead of SO Promotions Course 8 starting on 9 February 2026. The UFU submitted the status quo is the interviews proceeding.

• [31] As to the Balance of Convenience, it may be noted that the UFU is seeking interim relief limited to the conducting of the interviews so that SO Promotions Course 8 may 'continue' on 9 February 2026 and that the UFU contended that the balance of convenience favours the making of the order sought.

• [32] The UFU proffered that the arranging and undertaking of interviews would take some time and the subject matter of this dispute would be lost if there was a delay until the investigation is completed because SO Promotions Course 8 will not be capable of starting on 9 February 2026 and it would not be until the second half of 2026 before it could be conducted[6]. If that was to eventuate, the UFU contends there will be implications for FRV in terms of the availability of station officers, whereas, if the interviews do occur, a list of order of merit will be created, which would enable SO Promotions Course 8 to commence on 9 February 2026. The UFU submitted that the "mere conducting" of the Stage 3 interviews would not conflict with any statutory obligations because no one will be promoted as a result. As to the matters FRV relies upon from the interim report of Workdynamic dated 17 December 2025,[7] the UFU responded through ACFO Starinskas and submitted there is nothing in the summary of concerns therein that would prohibit FRV from conducting interviews with the 59 SO Promotions Course 8 applicants, or indeed would suggest even falling short of some statutory prohibition.

• [33] In addition, the UFU filed 30 Statements and submitted they contain common themes related to the "huge amount of work and study that goes into preparing for these exams for all three stages" and highlighted that they attest to the foregoing of annual leave, recreation time and social events with the consequent difficulties visited upon their families. The UFU also emphasised the loss of professional opportunities and the financial impact of foregoing overtime and 'acting up' opportunities due to the requirement to study for the exams. The UFU referred to the statements from "a significant number" of witnesses to the effect that the stress involved in the process and from the decision of FRV in pausing the process is such that they would not go through the process again. The UFU suggested that in the event that the Stage three interviews do not proceed now, these participants will be required to go back to study to prepare for those interviews at a later time, which will involve a substantial amount of work and if the Stage three interviews never occur, they will need to embark upon the entire process again. The UFU addressed the alternative scenario of the interviews proceeding, contending that it would result in the 59 SO Promotions Course 8 applicants being placed on an order of merit with the opportunity to undertake SO Promotions Course 8 if it proceeds in February 2026 with the consequent benefits to them and FRV.

• [34] FRV submitted that given the concerns that have been raised which will soon be the subject of a comprehensive report from Workdynamic, any delay to the start of the SO Course 8 is a short delay in the scheme of things. Citing the requirements of the statutory scheme governing FRV and its operations, the Fire Rescue Victoria Act 1958 (Vic), the Fire Rescue Victoria (General) Regulations 2020 (Vic), the Public Administration Act 2008 (Vic) and the Agreement, FRV asserted the selection process is designed to ensure that those candidates who are selected to progress through each round or to progress to SO Promotions Course 8, progress and/or are selected on the basis of merit.

• [35] Emphasising that the current position is that Stage three of the selection process is paused pending the outcome of the Workdynamic review, FRV submitted that the decision to pause the selection process is not a change in respect of which consultation is required. FRV argued that delaying, stopping or pausing a particular process, is not a decision to implement change and nor does it pertain to the employment relationship but instead pertains to practical matters about recruitment, training and timelines for the particular promotion cycle. FRV highlighted that the dates for each stage were not the subject of agreement or consultation and asserted the dates could be elected and changed outside of the comprehensive consultation process. FRV also submitted that it was required to pause Stage three in light of the four disputes that had been raised and the consequent requirement to preserve the status quo in respect of those disputes. Nonetheless, FRV accepts that there is a prima facie case for a serious question be tried concerning the alleged failure to consult in respect of the decision to pause but maintained that this was as far as that prima facie case went.

• [36] As for status quo, the primary submission of FRV is that there is no prima facie case but if it exists, it is extremely weak. FRV argued that the UFU's prima facie case concerns only the alleged failure to consult in respect of the decision to pause or stop Stage three. As such, FRV proffered that the appropriate relief, if any, would be to require FRV to consult in relation to that decision, which is ongoing given Stage three remains paused.

• [37] FRV argued that the decision to pause Stage three does not affect the application or operation of Division A or Division B of the Agreement and nor is it is implementing a change to classification structures, requirements for progression, eligibility criteria, ratios or opportunities to undertake qualifications. FRV also asserted that the decision is not implementing a change to any of the three-stage selection process for SO Promotions Course 8 and that a decision about starting, delaying, stopping or pausing a particular selection process is not a decision to "implement change in matters...pertaining to the employment relationship." FRV submitted that because the decision is simply a pause, it is therefore not properly subject to consultation. While FRV accepted that it would have to consult about the substance of each of the Stages, it proffered that the pause did not require consultation or approval and asserted that it can unilaterally decide when the dates are going to be.

• [38] FRV maintained that the pause itself is the status quo because at the time that the four earlier disputes were lodged, Stage two had been completed and Stage three had not yet started. FRV submitted that it was required to pause Stage three because it was required to preserve the status quo of the four disputes, which directly challenge the integrity and fairness of the ongoing selection process. FRV argued that the UFU is seeking to deploy the status quo provision in an inconsistent manner because it is essentially advocating that the status quo mandates that Stage three proceeds, in the manner of a mandatory injunction, at the very same time that there is a review going on into the integrity of the selection process. FRV submitted that the UFU had neither explained how or why the status quo compels the mandatory relief that it seeks, nor justified why its dispute should be prioritised, as far as the status quo is concerned, over the four disputes.

• [39] When it came to the balance of convenience, having accepted there is a weak prima facie case, FRV argued that the relief sought by the UFU has little utility and submitted that the appropriate interim relief (if any) would be to require FRV to consult and conciliate in relation to the decision to pause when the Commission and the parties have the benefit of the Workdynamic Australia findings and report. FRV suggested that when the inconvenience or injury to FRV if the interim relief is wrongly granted, is weighed against that which each of the employees would suffer if it is wrongly refused, the balance of convenience weighs strongly in favour of FRV.

• [40] FRV submitted that if the interim relief were wrongly refused, all that would occur is that the candidates would be inconvenienced, subject to uncertainty over the next month and delayed in undergoing Stage three (accepting that there would necessarily be a delay to the commencement of SO Promotions Course 8 for those who successfully complete that stage). On the other hand, if the interim relief was wrongly granted, FRV will have delved deeper, perhaps irretrievably so, into a compromised position by the time any review had been completed, putting itself at risk of breaching its statutory obligations while simultaneously visiting more stress upon candidates (whether involved in those integrity concerns or not). FRV argues that the UFU's evidence going to the toll that the first two Stages has taken on the candidates runs counter to the idea that FRV should rush them into another demanding process that might possibly be annulled.

• [41] In reply, the UFU submitted that in light of the FRV concession that there is a prima facie case in respect of the obligation to consult, there is the existence of a prima facie case and no properly identified injustice to FRV in conducting the interviews. As to the submission that the status quo before Stage three had commenced was not conducting interviews, the UFU asserted that the interviews were to commence from 20 October 2025 and candidates had been contacted and advised of their interview time and date. The UFU argued that the subsequent cancellation of the interviews was a departure from the status quo.

• [42] The principles applicable to applications for interim orders are well established. The UFU is required to persuade the Commission that it has an arguable case with some reasonable prospect of success and that the balance of convenience favours the making of the order(s) sought.

• [43] The UFU appropriately engaged with s.589(2) of the Act, noting that it is not an independent source of power and requires the Commission to have a particular matter before it. The UFU also engaged with the requirement for the Commission to have jurisdiction before it does anything 'in relation to a matter before it.' In this regard, the UFU proffered that the dispute resolution procedure clauses in the Agreement (clause 21 in Division A and clause 26 in Division B) provide that amongst the matters to which the dispute resolution processes apply are all matters relating to the application of, or for which express provision is made in the Agreement and all matters pertaining to the employment relationship, whether or not express provision for any such matter is made in the Agreement. The UFU submitted that both of these limbs have been engaged because the Commission has before it a dispute regarding the application of:

1. clause 12.9 of Division A and clauses 12.10 - 12.12 of Division B (Classifications, Career Paths and Opportunities);

1. clause 21.4 of Division A and clause 26.4 of Division B (status quo); and

1. clauses 16 and 17 of Division A and clauses 21 and 22 of Division B (Consultation).

• [44] I am satisfied that the Commission has power to deal with the dispute that has been referred to it. The dispute resolution procedures in the Agreement allow the Commission to settle disputes about the matters raised by the UFU. Clauses 16 and 17 of Division A and clauses 21 and 22 of Division B impose consultation requirements in circumstances where FRV wishes to implement changes in matters affecting the application of the Agreement or pertaining to the employment relationship. The UFU contends that FRV has failed to observe these. FRV denies this.

• [45] I am also satisfied that the dispute has been escalated as the Agreement contemplates in accordance with the relevant steps in the dispute resolution procedures. I am further satisfied that the dispute resolution procedures contemplate the use by the Commission of interim orders because they state that in exercising its functions under the clauses the Commission "may utilise all its powers in conciliation and arbitration to settle the dispute." While FRV made the submission that the Commission does not presently have the jurisdiction to deal with a dispute about an alleged failure to consult concerning SO Promotions Course 8 because it has not progressed any such dispute through the dispute resolution procedures, I have not found this submission persuasive. I consider that it is implicit, having regard to the manner in which the UFU first described its grievance on 23 October 2025, that the UFU was asserting there had been a failure to consult. To be aggrieved at a 'unilateral decision' is indicative of an assertion that there was a failure to consult.

• [46] I do not find the UFU's contention that FRV's decision to pause the SO Promotions Course 8 selection process is a "change" for the purpose of clause 17 of Division A or clause 22 of Division B in respect of which consultation is required, to be compelling. Nor do I consider the argument that an alteration of the timing of Stage three of itself constitutes a change to the three-stage selection process previously agreed by the Consultative Committee to be particularly persuasive. It has not been suggested that that the current pathway into the SO Promotions Course 8 comprising written and Command and Control assessments together with an interview will change. I also note that the UFU did not suggest that the dates in the Memorandum had been through the consultation process.[8] Further, while I accept that the three-stage selection process could itself be considered akin to "the mode of recruitment of the workforce" considered to be a matter pertaining to the employment relationship in Re Cram and Others, Ex parte N.S.W. Colliery Proprietors' Association Limited and Others,[9] I query whether the concept of a 'matter pertaining' descends into the timing of the various stages in the circumstances of the matter before me. I accept, however, that there is at least an arguable case that FRV failed to consult in respect of the FRV decision to pause.

• [47] As to the status quo, it may be noted that the UFU accepted the proposition that it arises when a dispute goes through Step 1 of the dispute resolution procedures.[10] I am satisfied, based on evidence provided by FRV following the hearing,[11] that the four candidates notified and commenced their disputes before the UFU had notified FRV in relation to its dispute on 23 October 2025. FRV proffered that the 'existing situation' immediately prior to the four candidates doing so was that Stage two of the SO Promotions Course 8 selection process had been completed and the Stage 3 interviews had not commenced, and that it was required to implement the pause of the SO Promotions Course 8 in response to the disputes the four candidates had submitted. The UFU's contention is that the status quo is interviews of the 59 candidates proceeding and this state of affairs has primacy. The UFU's position on the status quo ignores the fact of the earlier notification of disputes by the four candidates. I consider the FRV proposition that the pause itself was the status quo is the more compelling.

• [48] As to the balance of convenience, I do not doubt that the process of preparation for the written examination is a significant undertaking or that the impact on the work, family and social lives of the candidates is intense. I do not, however, consider the UFU assertion that delaying SO Promotions Course 8 would be of significant detriment for FRV and the Victorian community leading to response capability issues and increased financial implications for FRV to be compelling. Nor am I convinced that these considerations give rise to any particular urgency. The timeline contemplated in the Memorandum covered a period of just under 12 months, taking into account the date of the Memorandum (13 June 2025) and the completion of a 16 week course commencing on 9 February 2026 (30 May 2026). This does not speak to there being a pressing need requiring addressing without delay. I am also unpersuaded by the UFU evidence suggesting that a postponement would condemn the completion of the SO Promotions Course 8 to the second half of 2026. The FRV evidence indicated that any rescheduling could be prioritised so that the course could commence in the first half of 2026.[12] While the UFU submission that the "mere conducting" of the Stage 3 interviews would not conflict with any statutory obligations because no one will actually be promoted as a result has some force, I consider that any potential impact caused by a delay to the interview stage is outweighed by the consequences that might flow should the review conclude there are integrity concerns which ultimately compromise the rankings derived from the Stage one written examinations. It is evident from the number of candidates who originally applied that the SO Promotions Course is highly rated by eligible employees of FRV. Providing certainty and maintaining the integrity of the selection process for such a valued course should be paramount. I consider that the concerns identified in the interim report of Workdynamic Australia warrant rigorous investigation so that all candidates have faith in the process and if there have been some process deficiencies, they can be comfortable these will not be repeated in the future. Moreover, it would serve no useful purpose in facilitating the continuation of a process that is already under a cloud, only for there to be a requirement to unpack it after it is even more progressed. I have noted that the Workdynamic Australia review is to be completed in full by late January 2026. In all the circumstances, I do not consider that the balance of convenience favours an interim order.

• [49] Finally, in making this application for an interim order, the UFU seeks discretionary relief. As outlined above, the interim order sought is for the interviews of the 59 candidates to be completed before the end of January 2026. To grant the application would be to grant the UFU what is essentially a form of final relief and I consider this to be a discretionary reason that weighs against making the interim order it seeks.

• [50] The application for interim orders is refused.

Mr J McKenna, counsel, for the United Firefighters' Union.

[3] A letter dated 24 October 2025 was before the Commission with the reference 25OOC-134 which appears to be in relation to a "SO Promotions Review of Integrity Concerns dispute", and which characterised the UFU's dispute as being one in relation to the review it (FRV) was conducting in relation to "integrity concerns" regarding SO Promotions Course 8. In that letter, the FRV advised that it would be taking "all necessary steps to review the integrity of SO Course 8 in full compliance with its industrial and statutory obligations...".

[4] Witness Statement of Thomas (Tom) McPherson dated 18 December 2025 at [7] and [8].

[5] Witness Statement of Laura Campanaro dated 19 December 2025 at [5].

[6] Witness Statement of Edvardas Kaja Starinskas dated 12 December 2025 at [38].

[7] Attachment F to the Witness Statement of Thomas (Tom) McPherson dated 17 December 2025.

[9] [1987] HCA 28; (1987) 163 CLR 117 at 135.

[11] The parties having been granted leave to do so, and to reply - PN 445.

[12] Witness Statement of Thomas (Tom) McPherson dated 17 December 2025 at [29].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer