Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Australian Food Corporation Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1709

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union v Australian Food Corporation Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1709

industrial laW - Entry into employer's premises – Demand for entry by union officers holding permits issued by Industrial Registrar – Demand refused – Proceeding for penalty – Orders made by industrial magistrate set aside on appeal – Further appeal – Whether the respondent was the "occupier" of the premises at the date of the demand – Whether the demand was made "during working hours". Workplace Relations Act 1996 ss 4, 285A, 285B, 285C, 285D, 285E, 285F AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION v AUSTRALIAN FOOD CORPORATION PTY LIMITED Q110 of 2001 WILCOX, HILL & CARR JJ 7 DECEMBER 2001 SYDNEY (HEARD IN BRISBANE)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 110 of 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION

APPELLANT

AND: AUSTRALIAN FOOD CORPORATION PTY LIMITED

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX, HILL and CARR JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 7 DECEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY (HEARD IN BRISBANE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 110 of 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION

APPELLANT

AND: AUSTRALIAN FOOD CORPORATION PTY LIMITED

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX, HILL and CARR JJ

DATE: 7 DECEMBER 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY (HEARD IN BRISBANE)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX J: 1 This is an appeal against a decision of a judge of the Court (Dowsett J) setting aside orders made by an industrial magistrate in connection with a complaint of refusal to permit entry into certain premises. Dowsett J ordered that, in lieu of the orders made by the magistrate, the complaint be dismissed. Two issues have been argued on the appeal: whether the respondent was the "occupier" of the premises at the relevant time and whether the evidence established an attempt to inspect the premises "during working hours".