DEGENHARDT & AMBULANCE VICTORIA (No.2)

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DEGENHARDT & AMBULANCE VICTORIA (No.2) [2017] FCCA 2223

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Orders consequent upon liability determination –
nine scenarios proposed as representing possible constructions of the findings of fact and holdings of law on the liability judgment – scenario 7 preferred for the reasons given – directions ordered for hearing of quantum.

Cases cited:

Degenhardt v Ambulance Victoria [2017] FCCA 543

Polan v Goulburn Valley Health (No.2) [2017] FCA 30
Warramunda Village Inc. v Pryde (2002) 116 FCR 58

Applicant: GABRIELLE DEGENHARDT

Respondent: AMBULANCE VICTORIA

File Number: MLG 1366 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Wilson

Hearing date: 29 August 2017

Date of Last Submission: 29 August 2017

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 13 September 2017

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Maddison & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M. Rinaldi

Solicitors for the Respondent: DLA Piper Australia

I ORDER THAT within 21 days of the handing down of these reasons, the parties bring in minutes of orders that reflect these reasons as well as directions as to the further conduct of this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1366 of 2014

GABRIELLE DEGENHARDT

Applicant

And

AMBULANCE VICTORIA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Pursuant to orders made when I pronounced judgment on liability in this proceeding,[1] the parties produced an agreed document that set out nine separate scenarios that represented possible constructions of the findings and holdings in my reasons. The parties invited me to rule on which of those nine scenarios properly synthesised the findings of fact and holdings of law at which I arrived.

   [1] Degenhardt v Ambulance Victoria [2017] FCCA 543.

2. It is useful to set out in précis form the conclusions I reached on liability. I said the following –

   a)the 4 April 2013 contract and the 2010, 2011 and 2014 enterprise agreements applied;

   b)the applicant Gabrielle Degenhardt was entitled to be paid on the basis that she worked for four shifts;

   c)Ms Degenhardt was entitled to be paid for being “on-call”;

   d)Ms Degenhardt was entitled to be paid a casual loading; and

   e)Ms Degenhardt was entitled to be paid at penalty rates.[2]

   [2] Degenhardt v Ambulance Victoria [2017] FCCA 543 at [5].

3. Mr Rinaldi of counsel for Ambulance Victoria (“AV”) correctly pointed out that while paragraph 5(e) of the liability judgment spoke of penalty rates, in fact paragraph 148 of my reasons spoke of Ms Degenhardt’s entitlement to be paid a casual loading for all hours worked.

4. On 29 August 2017 I heard argument on the matter.

Synopsis

1. For the reasons that follow, in my view scenario 7 should be adopted.

The agreed scenarios

1. The agreed scenarios are set out immediately below –

   Definitions

   Claim Period

   means the period between 18 June 2009 to

   
   

   17 June 2015.

   Enterprise Agreements means:

   ·   the Rural Ambulance Victoria and Health Services Union (Management and Administrative Staff) Collective Agreement 2006 (“2006 Agreement”);

   ·   the Ambulance Victoria (Management and Administrative Staff) Enterprise Agreement 2011 (“2011 Agreement”); and