Casey, T.F. v F.J. Walker Ltd - [1989] FCA 104

Re: THOMAS FRANCIS CASEY
And: F.J. WALKER LIMITED
No. QI 10 of 1987
FED No. 104
Industrial Law
27 IR 248

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Spender J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law - commonwealth award - interpretation - working hours for tallyworkers in abattoir - extent of employer's entitlement under the award to slow pace of work - relevance of employer's concern as to quality of meat produced

Industrial Law - Commonwealth award - interpretation - "attend and offer himself for employment" - employee willing and able to work in accordance with award - employee absent whilst breach of award by employer continued - employee's entitlement to pay

Conciliation and Arbitration Act (1904), s. 123

F. J. Walker Queensland Meatworks Industrial Agreement-Award, 1976.

Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia v. British Motor Corporation (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. (1966) 8 FLR 70 followed

HEARING

BRISBANE

#DATE 22:3:1989

Counsel for applicant: Mr. D. Hall
instructed by: Messrs. Poteri, Woods & Co.

Counsel for respondent: Mr. J. Trew Q.C., with

Mr. J. Murdoch

instructed by: Richardsons

ORDER

The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $407.70.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

The applicant, Mr. Thomas Casey, claims $407.70 "being a payment due to him under the F. J. Walker Queensland Meatworks Industrial Agreement-Award 1976, an award of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Commission."

The claim is made pursuant to s. 123 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, which provided:-

"An employee entitled to the benefit of an award may, at any time within 6 years from any payment becoming due to him under the award, but not later, sue for the amount of the payment in the Court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction."

The claim by Mr. Casey is one of a large number of similar claims and has been treated by both parties as something of a test case. It arises out of an industrial dispute which occurred immediately after the Queen's Birthday weekend in 1987 at the meatworks, including the boning and packing room, operated by the respondent at Stuart River near Townsville. The meatworks has an export licence, and the meat produced is manufacturing class, mainly for export. The Stuart meatworks is conducted on a seasonal basis: the 1986 season concluded in November 1986, and the 1987 season commenced on 18 March 1987. On 30 October 1986 - i.e. before the commencement of the 1987 season - ten meatworks in Queensland, including the respondent, were consolidated into a corporate structure, The Australian Meat Holdings Group.
The applicant at all relevant times was a member of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (AMIEU), an organisation of employees registered under the then Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth.), and was a regular daily employee, working as a beef slicer for the respondent. He has been employed at the works over a period of approximately 36 years. His duties at…

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 Casey, T.F. v F.J. Walker Ltd

Details

AGLC: Casey, T.F. v. F.J. Walker Ltd [1989] FCA 104 (27 IR 248)
Case: [1989] FCA 104
Decision Date: 22 MARCH 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal by the applicant, T.F. Casey, against the respondent, F.J. Walker Ltd, concerning the interpretation of a Commonwealth award in relation to working hours for tally workers in an abattoir. The dispute centred on whether the employer was entitled under the award to dictate the pace of work, particularly when it slowed down, and how this impacted the quality of meat produced.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was the extent to which the employer could require tally workers to work at a slower pace and still be entitled to payment under the award. The applicant argued that the employer's concern about the quality of meat was not a valid reason to dictate the pace of work, while the respondent claimed it had the right to ensure that work was performed at an acceptable quality level. The court needed to interpret the relevant provisions of the award to determine the employer's entitlements in this regard.

The court found that the award did not explicitly permit employers to dictate the pace of work to ensure quality, nor did it allow for payment when work was slowed down. The court held that the employer's concern about the quality of meat was not sufficient to justify altering the working conditions set out in the award. Consequently, the respondent was not entitled to payment for the period during which the applicant's work was slowed. The court's decision hinged on a precise interpretation of the award's provisions and the principles of industrial law.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $407.70, reflecting the payment that should have been made for the period during which the applicant's work was slowed. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the terms of the award and the limitations on employers' rights to dictate work conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $407.70.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.