Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION: New South Wales Teaches Federation v Director-General of Education and Training (NSW) [2005] NSWIRComm 194 APPLICANT: New South Wales Teachers Federation PARTIES: RESPONDENT: Director-General of Education and Training (NSW) FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 1774 of 2005 CORAM: Schmidt J CATCHWORDS: Declarations - slip rule - whether motion was to be dismissed in part - application opposed - orders sought not granted Teaching Service Act 1970 LEGISLATION CITED: Teaching Service Act 1980 HEARING DATES: 06/03/2005 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/09/2005 APPLICANT: Ms PF Lowson of counsel SOLICITORS: LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: MacMahon Associates RESPONDENT: Mr P Menzies QC with Ms RA Pepper of counsel JUDGMENT: - 1 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES IN COURT SESSION CORAM: Schmidt J 9 June 2005 Matter No IRC 1774 of 2005 NEW SOUTH WALES TEACHERS FEDERATION v DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING (NSW) Application by New South Wales Teachers Federation for declaratory relief under section 154 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 JUDGMENT [2005] NSWIRComm 194 1 On 18 May, I gave judgment in this matter (New South Wales Teachers Federation v Director-General of Education and Training (NSW) [2005] NSWIRComm 162), dismissing the Union's motion. The Union later approached pursuant to the slip rule, seeking the making of the following orders, as reflecting the reasons given for the conclusion reached: Thus in order to give efficacy to the reasoning of the judgment, the order dismissing the applicant's motion at paragraph 30 of the judgment should dismiss only that part of the amended declaratory order application set out at paragraph 3(ii) of the judgment, and the Court should allow that part of the amended declaratory order application set out at paragraph 3(i) of the judgment. Paragraph 30 of the judgment should be amended under the slip rule as follows: For all the reasons given, the Union's motion [application] at paragraph 1(ii) of its Amended Application for Declaratory Order must be dismissed, and at paragraph 1(i) must be upheld. I order accordingly. 2 The Union submitted that it had been concluded in the May judgment, that the respondent had jurisdiction to conduct disciplinary proceedings under the Teaching Service Act 1970 ('the 1970 Act'), but not the Teaching Service Act 1980 ('the 1980 Act'), in the circumstances before the Court. It followed that the Union's motion ought to have been dismissed only in part. 3 The respondent opposed the application, submitting that, having concluded that the respondent had jurisdiction to conduct the disciplinary proceedings in question under the 1970 Act, it was unnecessary for the Court to have come to any final views on whether such proceedings could be conducted under the 1980 Act. That issue had thus not been finally determined and the orders sought therefore did not reflect the judgment given. It followed that such an order would not be made and would involve an inappropriate use of the slip rule. 4 As the judgment makes clear, the controversy between the parties concerned whether or not the respondent had jurisdiction to pursue various disciplinary proceedings which had been initiated. They concerned conduct which had occurred prior to the enactment of the 1980 Act, while the 1970 Act was in force. The Union's contention was that there was no jurisdiction to pursue the proceedings, under either the 1970 Act or the 1980 Act. The respondent's contention was that there was continuing liability under the 1970 Act and the conduct in question also fell within the 1980 Act and so it had jurisdiction to pursue the disciplinary processes initiated on two bases. 5 I concluded that the Union's argument could not be accepted. While there were aspects of the Union's argument in relation to the 1980 Act which had a foundation, I concluded at [28], that there was no intention in the 1980 Act, to extinguish teachers' liabilities and obligations under the 1970 Act. Given the controversy between the parties, in light of that conclusion, it was unnecessary to come to any final view as to the other arguments advanced about the proper construction of the 1980 Act - particularly whether such liabilities and obligations, ongoing under the 1970 Act, also fell within the provisions of the 1980 Act. 6 It was for those reasons that I dismissed the motion, declining to grant either of the orders sought. In that context, it is inappropriate that I now make the orders sought under the slip rule. ------------------------ DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.