Arundell v Macquarie Bank Limited

In *Arundell v Macquarie Bank Limited*, heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the applicants, former employees of Macquarie Bank, alleged underpayment of wages and entitlements. The dispute centred on whether the applicants were paid in accordance with the Banking, Finance and Insurance Award 2010, specifically concerning minimum rates of pay, annual leave loading, and payments for personal/carer's leave, compassionate leave, and public holidays. A key issue was whether deeds of release executed by some applicants upon cessation of employment precluded them from pursuing these claims.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the remuneration received by the applicants satisfied their entitlements to minimum rates of pay under clause 13.1(a) of the Award, and whether payments made for periods of annual leave, personal/carer’s leave, compassionate leave, and public holidays complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Award. The court also had to consider the validity and effect of the deeds of release, and whether the respondent was entitled to set off payments already made against any proven entitlements.

The court found that while the respondent had made payments that satisfied the minimum rates of pay under clause 13(a) of the Award and was entitled to set off these normal salary payments, the deeds of release were not effective in precluding the applicants' claims. Contraventions of clause 24.3(a) of the Award and the National Employment Standards regarding annual leave loading, both during periods of leave and on untaken leave at termination, were made out. The court also found contraventions in relation to payments for personal/carer's leave, compassionate leave, and public holidays. An overpayment made to one applicant was found to be recoverable.

Consequently, the court made declarations of contravention and ordered Macquarie Bank to pay compensation to various applicants, with specific amounts detailed for each. Interest was also awarded on these amounts. The respondent's cross-claim was dismissed.