Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Noorton Pty Ltd

Case

[2022] FedCFamC2G 699


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Noorton Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamC2G 699 [2022] FedCFamC2G 699

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Noorton Pty Ltd and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, with the dispute centred around alleged underpayments made to Mr Chippindale, an employee of Noorton. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal that adjudicated the case. The legal issues at the core of the case revolved around the interpretation and application of various industrial instruments that governed Noorton and Mr Chippindale’s employment relationship during a specified period. Additionally, the court had to determine whether Noorton had indeed failed to pay Mr Chippindale the travel allowances to which he was entitled under clause 14.22 of the PHE Award.

The court examined the evidence presented and found that while Noorton argued that the evidence did not support Mr Chippindale's claim for travel allowance, the calculations provided by Mr Garrett were based on assumptions that did not align with the terms of clause 14.22. Despite this, the court was not convinced that the evidence was incapable of supporting Mr Chippindale's claim. Consequently, the court decided to invite further submissions on whether Noorton had failed to pay Mr Chippindale the travel allowances to which he was entitled, based on the admitted evidence and the court’s findings. The court's decision was to set a directions hearing to address these issues and determine the appropriate relief, if any, that should be granted.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the PHE Award applied to Mr Chippindale’s role as a General Purpose Hand and a master on vessels Noorton operated for various services, while the GPH and 2009 Masters agreements applied to charter and special event services. However, the calculations relied upon by the applicants were flawed, not reflecting the terms of the PHE Award. The court did not find the evidence to be incapable of supporting Mr Chippindale's claims and scheduled a hearing to further explore the issue of underpayments and the appropriate relief.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Employment & Labour Law

Legal Concepts

  • Award Coverage

  • Industrial Instruments

  • Modern Awards

  • Pre-reform Award

  • Breach of Contract

  • Unjust Enrichment