ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – interim order – ss.84, 589, 739 Fair Work Act 2009 – respondent proposed to make applicant redundant – applicant applied to Commission to deal with a dispute in relation to consultation under Mission Australia Service Delivery Enterprise Agreement 2016-17 (Enterprise Agreement) – applicant claimed respondent failed to comply with consultation obligation to consider measures to avoid or minimise terminations under Enterprise Agreement – applicant lodged application two days prior to proposed termination – Commission twice invited respondent to delay termination until matter could be listed for further conciliation – respondent rejected invitation – Commission granted interim order – applicant was on parental leave when notified of proposed redundancy – applicant requested redeployment period be delayed until return to work from parental leave – respondent advised applicant that permanent employees on parental leave were required to participate in current redeployment process – applicant submitted that postponement of redeployment until return from parental lease was measure to avoid or minimise risk of termination – whether serious question to be tried – respondent submitted it fulfilled consultation obligations – Commission satisfied questions to be answered including whether respondent engaged in meaningful consultation, had done all it could to mitigate any adverse effects of termination and in refusing to delay consideration of redeployment whether made reasonable efforts to redeploy – applicant claimed dispute settling procedure in Enterprise Agreement requires status quo be maintained to allow further consultation – respondent submitted that when applicant made application to deal with dispute that respondent had already notified her of decision to terminate meaning the continuation of work as normal included effecting termination – Commission considered that balance of convenience lies with applicant – Commission satisfied should grant interim order as applicant’s termination could only be undone after significant litigation – urgency of application made out as termination were to occur a little over an hour after hearing commenced – application for interim order granted. Lee v Mission Australia
