Coles v Elsen Bros Pty Ltd

Case [2007] FMCA 1838


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COLES v ELSEN BROS PTY LTD [2007] FMCA 1838
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Pecuniary penalties – breaches of award – underpayment of annual leave, annual leave loading and payment in lieu of notice.
Workplace Relations Act1996; ss, 167
Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080
Gibbs v City of Altona (1992) 42 IR 255
Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7
Martin v W & K Crust Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 992
Applicant: ALLISON MARGARET COLES
Respondent: ELSEN BROS PTY LTD T/as BRISBANE ROCK SALES & HELIDON DIMENSIONAL SANDSTONE
File number: BRG 573 of 2007
Judgment of: Wilson FM
Hearing date: 31 October 2007
Date of last submission: 31 October 2007
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 2 November 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Horneman-Wren
Solicitors for the Applicant: Clayton Utz
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Murdoch
Solicitors for the Respondent: Bennett Carroll

ORDERS

  1. The respondent pay to the Commonwealth the following penalties:

    (a)In respect of the admitted breach of clause 4.9.2 of the Notional Agreement Preserving State Awards between the respondent and Mr Patrick Scherger the sum of $8,800.00;

    (b)In respect of the admitted breach of clauses 7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3 and 7.1.4 of the Notional Agreement Preserving State Awards between the respondent and Mr Patrick Scherger the sum of $11,600.00;

    (c)In respect of the admitted breach of clauses 7.1.5 of the Notional Agreement Preserving State Awards between the respondent and Mr Patrick Scherger the sum of $1,600.00.

  2. Payment of the penalties in order (1) be made as follows:

    (a)The sum of $5,000.00 on or before 30 November 2007;

    (b)The sum of $5,000.00 on or before 31 December 2007;

    (c)The sum of $5,000.00 on or before 31 January 2008;

    (d)The sum of $5,000.00 on or before 29 February 2008; and

    (e)The sum of $2,000.00 on or before 31 March 2008.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRG 573 of 2007

ALLISON MARGARET COLES

Applicant

And

ELSEN BROS PTY LTD T/as BRISBANE ROCK SALES & HELIDON DIMENSIONAL SANDSTONE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. Until 12 May 2006 Patrick Scherger was employed by the respondent as its Site Senior Executive managing work performed at the respondent’s quarry. Mr Scherger was dismissed in somewhat unusual circumstances. He had been having an affair with the then wife of one of the then directors of the respondent. He had also requested a reference from the respondent’s office manager, no doubt creating a belief in the minds of those controlling the respondent that he intended to resign from his employment.

  2. Following upon unsuccessful negotiations the applicant, a workplace inspector employed by the Workplace Ombudsman, and appointed as such under section 167 of the Workplace Relations Act1996 (Cth) (“the Act”) brought proceedings against the respondent pursuant to s.718 and 719 of the Act.

  3. The applicant sought penalties, alleging that the respondent had breached applicable provisions in the Quarry, Crushed Stone, Sand And Gravel Industry Award – State (Queensland) 2003 (now a Notional Agreement Preserving State Award) that governed…

Continue reading Coles v Elsen Bros Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Coles v Elsen Bros Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 1838
Case
[2007] FMCA 1838
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coles brought an action against Elsen Bros Pty Ltd in the Federal Court, alleging breaches of the Notional Agreement Preserving State Awards in relation to the employment of Mr Patrick Scherger. The dispute centred on the penalties for these breaches and the manner in which they should be paid. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalties for the breaches and the method of payment.

The primary legal issue for the court was to ascertain the correct penalties for the breaches of the agreement and to decide on a payment schedule that would be fair and enforceable. The court needed to ensure that the penalties reflected the seriousness of the breaches and that the payment schedule was structured to allow for compliance while also maintaining a degree of financial pressure on the respondent.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the terms of the Notional Agreement and the nature of the breaches. It determined that the penalties for the breaches of clause 4.9.2, clauses 7.1.1 to 7.1.4, and clause 7.1.5 were as follows: $8,800.00, $11,600.00, and $1,600.00 respectively. The court also set out a detailed payment schedule, specifying the amounts to be paid at various dates from November 2007 to March 2008.

The court ordered Elsen Bros Pty Ltd to pay the penalties as outlined, with the first payment of $5,000.00 due by 30 November 2007, followed by four further payments of $5,000.00 each by the end of each successive month, and the final payment of $2,000.00 by 31 March 2008. This structured payment plan was designed to facilitate compliance while ensuring that the penalties were effectively enforced.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The respondent pay to the Commonwealth the following penalties:

(a) In respect of the admitted breach of clause 4.9.2 of the Notional Agreement Preserving State Awards between the respondent and Mr Patrick Scherger the sum of $8,800.00;

(b) In respect of the admitted breach of clauses 7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3 and 7.1.4 of the Notional Agreement Preserving State Awards between the respondent and Mr Patrick Scherger the sum of $11,600.00;

(c) In respect of the admitted breach of clauses 7.1.5 of the Notional Agreement Preserving State Awards between the respondent and Mr Patrick Scherger the sum of $1,600.00.

2.

Payment of the penalties in order (1) be made as follows:

(a) The sum of $5,000.00 on or before 30 November 2007;

(b) The sum of $5,000.00 on or before 31 December 2007;

(c) The sum of $5,000.00 on or before 31 January 2008;

(d) The sum of $5,000.00 on or before 29 February 2008; and

(e) The sum of $2,000.00 on or before 31 March 2008.

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.