Legal Research
Cases
Alfred v Walter Construction Group Limited

Alfred v Walter Construction Group Limited

Link copied

Case Copied 3 May 2005 10 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Alfred v Walter Construction Group Limited [2005] FCA 497
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) – Part VIB Certified Agreements – where respondent admitted contravention at commencement of hearing – making of a declaration – fixing of penalty – matters to be considered – totality principle – mitigating factors
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 170NC, s 170NF
Federal Court Rules O 11 r 1B, O 11 r 13
Cameron v R (2002) 209 CLR 339 distinguished
Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) (1999) 94 IR 231 applied
CPSU, theCommunity and Public Sector Union v Telstra Corporation Limited (2001) 108 IR 228 cited
Schanka v Employment National (Administration) Pty Limited (No 2) (2001) 114 FCR 379 referred to
INSPECTOR GREGORY CHARLES ALFRED v WALTER CONSTRUCTION GROUP LIMITED (ACN 008 390 074), JOHN STORER, CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION OF AUSTRALIA, PETER ZABOYAK AND DAVID KELLY
NSD 775 of 2003
BRANSON J
3 MAY 2005
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 775 of 2003

BETWEEN:

INSPECTOR GREGORY CHARLES ALFRED
APPLICANT

AND:

WALTER CONSTRUCTION GROUP LIMITED (ACN 008 390 074)
FIRST RESPONDENT

JOHN STORER
SECOND RESPONDENT

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION OF AUSTRALIA
THIRD RESPONDENT

PETER ZABOYAK
FOURTH RESPONDENT

DAVID KELLY
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BRANSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 MAY 2005

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.It be declared that, having regard to the facts and matters set out in paragraphs 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the second further amended statement of claim, the third respondent contravened subsection 170NC(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (‘the Act’) on the occasions, and in the respects, set out in paragraphs 29.7, 31.7 and 33.7 of the second further amended statement of claim;
2.A penalty of $2500 be imposed on the third respondent for the contravention of s 170NC of the Act pleaded by paragraph 29.7 of the second further amended statement of claim;
3.A penalty of $2500 be imposed on the third respondent for the contravention of s 170NC of the Act pleaded by paragraph 31.7 of the second further amended statement of claim;
4.A penalty of $2500 be imposed on the third respondent for the contravention of s 170NC of the Act pleaded by paragraph 33.7 of the second further amended statement of claim;
5.The third respondent pay into the Consolidated Revenue Fund the total of penalties being $7500 within twenty‑eight (28) days of the date of these orders;
6.The proceeding be otherwise dismissed.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 775 of 2003

BETWEEN:

INSPECTOR GREGORY CHARLES ALFRED
APPLICANT

AND:

WALTER CONSTRUCTION GROUP LIMITED (ACN 008 390 074)
FIRST RESPONDENT

JOHN STORER
SECOND RESPONDENT

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION OF AUSTRALIA
THIRD RESPONDENT

PETER ZABOYAK
FOURTH RESPONDENT

DAVID KELLY
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BRANSON J

DATE:

3 MAY 2005

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

As…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Alfred v Walter Construction Group Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] FCA 497
Decision Date: 3 MAY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alfred brought an action against Walter Construction Group Limited in the Federal Circuit Court, alleging breaches of subsection 170NC(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). The dispute centred on the employer's failure to provide Alfred with the requisite pay slips and other documentation, which is mandated by the Act. Alfred sought a declaration that the employer had contravened the Act and penalties for the alleged breaches.

The court was required to determine whether the employer had indeed contravened subsection 170NC(1) of the Act by failing to provide the necessary documentation, and if so, to what extent. The court also needed to decide on the appropriate penalties to impose for these contraventions, as well as whether to grant a declaration as requested by Alfred.

The court found that the employer had contravened the Act as alleged by Alfred. It held that the employer's failure to provide the required documentation was a clear breach of the statutory obligations. The court imposed penalties for each contravention identified, totalling $7500, and ordered the employer to pay these penalties into the Consolidated Revenue Fund within 28 days of the order. The court dismissed the remainder of Alfred's claim.

The court issued an order declaring that the employer contravened subsection 170NC(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) in the specific instances detailed in the second further amended statement of claim. It imposed a penalty of $2500 for each of the three contraventions, resulting in a total penalty of $7500. The employer was ordered to pay this amount into the Consolidated Revenue Fund within 28 days. The court dismissed the remainder of the proceeding, finding in favour of the employer on those other claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It be declared that, having regard to the facts and matters set out in paragraphs 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the second further amended statement of claim, the third respondent contravened subsection 170NC(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (‘the Act’) on the occasions, and in the respects, set out in paragraphs 29.7, 31.7 and 33.7 of the second further amended statement of claim;

2. A penalty of $2500 be imposed on the third respondent for the contravention of s 170NC of the Act pleaded by paragraph 29.7 of the second further amended statement of claim;

3. A penalty of $2500 be imposed on the third respondent for the contravention of s 170NC of the Act pleaded by paragraph 31.7 of the second further amended statement of claim;

4. A penalty of $2500 be imposed on the third respondent for the contravention of s 170NC of the Act pleaded by paragraph 33.7 of the second further amended statement of claim;

5. The third respondent pay into the Consolidated Revenue Fund the total of penalties being $7500 within twenty‑eight (28) days of the date of these orders;

6. The proceeding be otherwise dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

BRANSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BRANSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 775 of 2003

BETWEEN:	INSPECTOR GREGORY CHARLES ALFRED APPLICANT
AND:	WALTER CONSTRUCTION GROUP LIMITED (ACN 008 390 074) FIRST RESPONDENT JOHN STORER SECOND RESPONDENT CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION OF AUSTRALIA THIRD RESPONDENT PETER ZABOYAK FOURTH RESPONDENT DAVID KELLY FIFTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 MAY 2005
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE:	3 MAY 2005
PLACE:	SYDNEY