Crompton v Lion-Dairy - [2013] FMCA 27

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CROMPTON v LION-DAIRY

[2013] FMCA 27

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair Work Act – interpretation of Enterprise Agreement – whether employee entitled to salary continuance payments after first 3 month period – employer’s right to withhold authorisation of further payments.

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss.217 & 548

BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council (1977) 180 CLR 266
Burns v Australian Airlines Limited (1995) 185 CLR 410
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Amcor Limited (2002) 113 IR 112
Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald International [2004] All ER (D) 170
Kamp v TransUrban Limited [2009] VCC 0611
Kucks v CSR Limited (1996) 66 IR 182
The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Limited [2007] AIRC 406

Applicant:

MICHAEL ANTHONY CROMPTON

Respondent:

LION DAIRY & DRINKS PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NATIONAL FOODS LTD)

File Number:

ADG 279 of 2011

Judgment of:

Simpson FM

Hearing date:

21 May 2012

Date of Last Submission:

21 May 2012

Delivered at:

Adelaide

Delivered on:

24 January 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr McDonough

Solicitors for the Applicant:

C B McDonough & Co.

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Forbes

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Freehills

ORDERS

The applicant’s application of 28 October 2011 is dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADG 279 of 2011

MICHAEL ANTHONY CROMPTON

Applicant

And

LION-DAIRY & DRINKS PTY LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NATIONAL FOODS LIMITED)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

In these reasons, statements of fact are findings of fact arrived at on the balance of probabilities after considering all of the evidence and the submissions put.
These proceedings were brought in the Court’s Fair Work Division as a small claim. Section 548(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provides that the Court is not bound by any rules of evidence and procedure and may act in an informal manner, without regard to legal forms and technicalities. A party can only be represented in the proceedings by a lawyer with the leave of the Court[1]. The Court may grant this leave to a party and, if it considers it appropriate, do so subject to conditions designed to ensure that no other party is unfairly disadvantaged.[2] In this case, both parties sought to be represented by lawyers. Leave was given to both parties.
[1] s.548(5) Fair Work Act
[2] s.548(6) Fair Work Act
The respondent has been referred to in the documents filed as National Foods Limited. Affidavit evidence filed indicates that, at some stage, the respondent changed its name to Lion-Dairy & Drinks Pty Ltd. In the heading I propose to refer to the respondent as Lion-Dairy & Drinks Pty Ltd (formerly known as National Foods Limited).

Background

The respondent company is in the business of producing milk products. The applicant has worked for the respondent since December 2001. He currently works for the respondent as a storeman.
The applicant’s employment is governed by…

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 Crompton v Lion-Dairy

Details

AGLC: Crompton v Lion-Dairy [2013] FMCA 27
Case: [2013] FMCA 27
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia in Adelaide heard a case between Michael Anthony Crompton and Lion-Dairy & Drinks Pty Ltd, formerly known as National Foods Limited. The applicant, employed by the respondent since 2001, was injured in October 2010 and was unable to perform his work duties as a result. The applicant submitted a claim for salary continuance benefits under Clause 23 of the National Foods Limited, Salisbury Production Enterprise Agreement 2010. The respondent initially approved salary continuance payments but ceased them after three months, without authorising further payments. The applicant sought payment for the period of 10 January 2011 to 31 March 2011, arguing that the respondent had contravened the Enterprise Agreement. The court examined the interpretation of Clause 23, which provides for salary continuance payments for employees with long-term non-work-related sickness or injury. The court found that Clause 23.8(a) grants the respondent the power to approve or decline salary continuance payments beyond the initial three months. The respondent exercised this power to cease payments from 10 January 2011. The court concluded that the respondent had not breached the terms of the Enterprise Agreement and dismissed the applicant's claim.

Orders