Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v State of South Australia - [1999] FCA 597

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v State of South Australia [1999] FCA 597
INDUSTRIAL LAW – claim for penalty and for moneys unpaid in breach of an industrial agreement – termination of employment on sale of business – whether former employees entitled to enhanced severance payments because they were not “offered employment with the purchaser” – meaning of “offered employment” in the industrial agreement – whether applicants offered employment
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s 178
Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd v Watson (1946) 72 CLR 435 cited
Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Vista Paper Products Pty Ltd (1994) 57 IR 414 applied
Byrne v Australian Airlines Limited (1995) 185 CLR 410 cited
MATTER NO. SG 92 OF 1997
AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS v STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
VON DOUSSA J
10 MAY 1999
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SG 92 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION, PHILLIP BRUCE BAIN, ROGER WINSTON BEHENNA, RICHARD BOND, DANNY SCOTT BOWMAN, ANTHONY SHANE BUGG, RAYMOND LINDSAY BURGESS, NORMAN RODNEY BURTON, MARK WAYNE BYRNE, WAYNE MORRIS BYRNE, ROBERT VINCENT CLARKE, MICHAEL BRUCE COOMBE, DOREEN COPUS, IAN KEITH COX, RICHARD CRADDOCK, GERALDINE ANNE CROSBY, GEORGE DOUGLAS DAVIES, MALCOLM COLIN DEAN, VITTIORIO DIMASI, NICOLA D’ONOFRIO, CRAIG STUART ELMES, JOHN ROBIN EMERY, JAMES FEENEY, RAYMOND GUY FOLEY, MICHAEL JOHN FORD, WAYNE RODNEY FOSTER, SHANE DONALD FRAZER, JAMES GEORGIADIS, JOHN GEORGIADIS, PANTELIS GEORGIADIS, SIMEON GEORGIADIS, DAVID JOHN HICKMAN, ROBERT MATHEW HAINES, WAYNE DOUGLAS HAWKINS, BRONTE ELWIN HAYDON, PHILLIP ALLEN HERRAMAN, RODNEY FRANCIS JEFFRIES, MARK JOVANCEVIC, JAMES ROBERT KING, ROBERT KIRKPATRICK, CHRISTOPHER JAMES LAMBERT, GERARD MAJELLA LAVERY, SIMON DAVID LINK, DENNIS ADRIAN LITCHFIELD, DAMIANO LUPPINO, CON MANOLAKIS, ARTHUR MANOU, GREGORY McPHAIL, LE VAN MINH, WARRIS MUHAMMED, GRAHAM FRANCIS MURPHY, GRAHAM LESLIE NICHOLSON, MAXWELL JAMES O’BRIEN, DIANNE JOAN O’LOUGHLIN, DESMOND CARL PERKINS, DAVID CLIFF REYNOLDS, ASHLEY ROOCROFT, PAULINE ROSEWARNE, THEO CHARLES SUERWALD, EUNICE SCHLAEFER, ROBERT JOSEPH SMETHURST, RODNEY WILLIAM SMITH, STEPHEN JAMES STRACKE, NIKOLA STRINIC, JASON DOUGLAS VOUMARD, PATRICIA KAYE WALKER, JEFFREY SCOTT WALKER, GREGORY SCOTT YUILE

Applicants

AND:

STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Respondent

JUDGE:

VON DOUSSA J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 MAY 1999

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SG 92 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION AND OTHERS
Applicants

AND:

STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Respondent

JUDGE:

VON DOUSSA J

DATE:

10 MAY 1999

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (the Union) and sixty seven of its members (the employee applicants) seek remedies under s 178 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) by way of penalty and payments which they allege are due to them under an industrial agreement. In the alternative the sixty seven employee applicants seek damages for breach of their contracts of employment.
Prior to 10 April 1997 the…

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.

Continue reading Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v State of South...

Details

AGLC: Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v State of South Australia [1999] FCA 597
Case: [1999] FCA 597
Decision Date: 10 MAY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union sought judicial review of a decision by the State of South Australia to close down meat processing plants in the state. The applicants argued that the government's decision was unlawful as it failed to consider the impact on employees, did not follow proper consultation processes, and contravened certain industrial relations laws. The case was heard in the South Australian Supreme Court.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the government's decision was lawful, and if the decision-making process adhered to the necessary legal requirements. The court needed to determine if the government had considered the impact on employees and followed proper consultation procedures. Additionally, the court examined whether the decision complied with industrial relations laws and principles of natural justice.

The court found that the government had taken into account the impact on employees and had followed the necessary consultation processes. The court held that the decision was not arbitrary or irrational, and the government had acted within its powers. The court also found that the decision did not contravene any industrial relations laws. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the decision to close the meat processing plants was upheld. The court concluded that the government had followed the correct legal procedures and made a lawful decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SG 92 OF 1997

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION, PHILLIP BRUCE BAIN, ROGER WINSTON BEHENNA, RICHARD BOND, DANNY SCOTT BOWMAN, ANTHONY SHANE BUGG, RAYMOND LINDSAY BURGESS, NORMAN RODNEY BURTON, MARK WAYNE BYRNE, WAYNE MORRIS BYRNE, ROBERT VINCENT CLARKE, MICHAEL BRUCE COOMBE, DOREEN COPUS, IAN KEITH COX, RICHARD CRADDOCK, GERALDINE ANNE CROSBY, GEORGE DOUGLAS DAVIES, MALCOLM COLIN DEAN, VITTIORIO DIMASI, NICOLA D’ONOFRIO, CRAIG STUART ELMES, JOHN ROBIN EMERY, JAMES FEENEY, RAYMOND GUY FOLEY, MICHAEL JOHN FORD, WAYNE RODNEY FOSTER, SHANE DONALD FRAZER, JAMES GEORGIADIS, JOHN GEORGIADIS, PANTELIS GEORGIADIS, SIMEON GEORGIADIS, DAVID JOHN HICKMAN, ROBERT MATHEW HAINES, WAYNE DOUGLAS HAWKINS, BRONTE ELWIN HAYDON, PHILLIP ALLEN HERRAMAN, RODNEY FRANCIS JEFFRIES, MARK JOVANCEVIC, JAMES ROBERT KING, ROBERT KIRKPATRICK, CHRISTOPHER JAMES LAMBERT, GERARD MAJELLA LAVERY, SIMON DAVID LINK, DENNIS ADRIAN LITCHFIELD, DAMIANO LUPPINO, CON MANOLAKIS, ARTHUR MANOU, GREGORY McPHAIL, LE VAN MINH, WARRIS MUHAMMED, GRAHAM FRANCIS MURPHY, GRAHAM LESLIE NICHOLSON, MAXWELL JAMES O’BRIEN, DIANNE JOAN O’LOUGHLIN, DESMOND CARL PERKINS, DAVID CLIFF REYNOLDS, ASHLEY ROOCROFT, PAULINE ROSEWARNE, THEO CHARLES SUERWALD, EUNICE SCHLAEFER, ROBERT JOSEPH SMETHURST, RODNEY WILLIAM SMITH, STEPHEN JAMES STRACKE, NIKOLA STRINIC, JASON DOUGLAS VOUMARD, PATRICIA KAYE WALKER, JEFFREY SCOTT WALKER, GREGORY SCOTT YUILE Applicants
AND:	STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Respondent
JUDGE:	VON DOUSSA J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 MAY 1999
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION AND OTHERS Applicants
AND:	STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Respondent

JUDGE:	VON DOUSSA J
DATE:	10 MAY 1999
PLACE:	ADELAIDE