It seems an email doing the rounds contradicts what Lawrie Cox stated. Here is an excerpt:
AIPA AIRC Rule Decision Held Over
An application by Qantas and AFAP for an immediate stay of the decision of SDP Kaufman enlarging AIPA coverage was refused by the President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in Melbourne today.
Instead, the AIRC said that SDP Kaufman should proceed to give his consent to the AIPA Rule change.
The AIRC said that when SDP Kaufman had done so, a stay would be ordered to operate seven days from that decision unless AIPA persuaded him to the contrary.
AIPA’s submission was that the Qantas and AFAP application for a stay was premature as in fact no formal decision had been made by SDP Kaufman at the time their application was lodged.
A stay is usual when an Appeal has been lodged. It operates until the hearing of the Appeal. AIPA will be seeking an expeditious hearing.
Having reviewed SDP Kaufman’s decision, I am personally comforted by the full bench’s determination and remain confident that ultimately common sense will prevail.
So who is correct?