Is the Fair Work Commission nothing but a Toothless Tiger unable to exercise Judicial Powers?

In a recent decision by the President of the Fair Work Commission, notable facts were disclosed by the Commission regarding their actual powers and jurisdiction.  Ms Le lodged a general complaint against Virgin Airlines concerning the lawfulness and reasonableness of Virgin Airlines direction to all front line and airport based team members to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Questions were posed to the Full Bench of the Commission for analysis in the interest of justice and the lives of the Australian community which in reply revealed the Fair Work commission has limited powers to act regarding a dispute in the form of mediation or conciliation, or by making a recommendation or expressing an opinion. Being only a commission without judicial powers this opinion is of course a non judicial opinion as members of the Commission can only provide a non judicial function as the Commission fails to be a court as this is purely with the consent of both parties.

At [13] it is provided that conditions within the Fair Work Act have not been satisfied and that the commission's jurisdiction to deal with Ms Le & 9 other applicants on the same subject matter is limited.

At [14] the Commission admits it has no judicial power, and that on the question of the applicants seeking relief from the Fair Work Commission as this relief would involve the exercise of judicial power, something the Fair Work Commission fails to possess as it is not a court exercising the judicial powers of the Commonwealth. The Commission said "Determining existing legal rights is a matter for the courts" and the only power the Commission has is to form an opinion (but not a legal opinion) but the opinion does not bind the parties.


"The Facts", Did You Know?


In Kara Le’s case (- C2022/301 - Le v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd), Kara Le was REFUSED to be Injected BECAUSE she attended for Injection at the Mymedical Health Centre Kirrawee, NSW and the Injecting Practitioner REFUSED TO INJECT, because it is UNLAWFUL for ANYBODY to be Covid-Injected (involuntarily with threats of coercion or intimidation of being employment terminated) under THE Federal Health Department ‘Australian Immunisation Handbook Criterion 2. for Valid Consent.

Kara Le, (and others we are representing DID NOT refuse the Directive to be Covid-Injected, she (and others) applied to be Covid-Injected and the Injecting Practitioner REFUSED to inject when advised Kara Le (and others) were attending as directed under these dual non-negotiable penalty and the draconian sacking threat penaltyTerms’ (or ‘Conditions’ of the Directive), and the Injecting Practitioner rightfully and lawfully REFUSED to inject, BECAUSE this breaches the Valid Consent law that any injection must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.

And the Injecting Practitioner refused BECAUSE the Federal Health Department ‘Australian Immunisation Handbook Criterion 2. for Valid Consent PROHIBITED them from injecting as injecting without Valid Consent is Unlawful.