In an ongoing matter regarding union coverage of local government employees, the Commission in Court Session addressed an oral application by the respondent union during proceedings, which sought broad-ranging orders for the production of documents from the applicant unions and intervenor.  The application was based on allegations of collusion between the applicants and intervenors in the substantive matter which were said to be relevant to the credibility of witnesses and the ability of the applicant union to represent local government employees effectively.
The Commission in Court Session was not persuaded to make the orders as sought   and found no basis for an order for the production of documents, considering the request from the applicant to be too broad. However, the Commission did make limited orders for production of documents related to the evidence in the proceedings, as these were relevant to the issues identified by the respondent.
The Commission considered the respondent’s allegations, and the evidence presented. The Commission noted that there was no direct evidence of collusion or improper conduct by the applicants or their representatives, and emphasised the need to avoid further delays and additional costs in the proceedings. The Commission found that the respondent had not established any material change in circumstances to warrant revisiting its earlier decision. The Commission concluded that the orders sought by the respondent were oppressive, speculative, and contrary to the public interest.
The Commission granted the applications by the applicant unions to dismiss the respondent’s application for production of documents. The proceedings were re-listed for further directions to deal with the claim for privilege arising from the orders previously made.
 
The decision can be read here.