Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Helloworld Travel Limited, Viva Holidays Ii Limited

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union brought an action against Helloworld Travel Limited and Viva Holidays Ii Limited, seeking relief from a stand-down of employees due to the impact of COVID-19 on the travel sector. The respondents had stood down their employees on full pay in response to the crisis, but the applicants sought a declaration that the stand-down was unlawful and an order for the respondents to pay the employees' wages. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the primary judge found in favour of the respondents, dismissing the applicants' claims.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondents had the lawful authority to stand down the employees under section 524 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The applicants argued that the respondents could not lawfully stand down the employees because they were unable to be usefully employed. The respondents contended that the employees were not usefully employable due to the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the travel industry, and that the stand-down met the requirements of section 524. The court was required to determine whether the respondents had a lawful basis for standing down the employees and whether the applicants' claims for compensation for economic loss were properly before the court.

The court found that the respondents had the lawful authority to stand down the employees under section 524 of the Fair Work Act. The court held that the respondents had demonstrated that the employees were not usefully employable due to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic. The court further found that the stand-down met the requirements of section 524, as the respondents had acted in good faith and the stand-down was not an exercise of the respondents' managerial prerogative. The court also held that the applicants' claims for compensation for economic loss were, in substance, claims for wages and that the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear such claims. Additionally, the court found that there were discretionary reasons to refuse the applicants' claims for compensation for economic loss, even if the court had jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims in their entirety, finding that the respondents had the lawful authority to stand down the employees and that the applicants' claims for compensation for economic loss were not properly before the court. The court made no orders for costs.