FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| EL SOUKI v MACUSHLA PTY LTD | [2017] FCCA 591 |
| Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair work – where Applicant claims underpayment of wages – no meal breaks – no payment of superannuation – no records kept by Respondent – factual determinations – adjourned as to quantification of monies owed to Applicant. |
| Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.544 |
| Applicant: | JIHAD EL SOUKI |
| Respondent: | MACUSHLA PTY LTD (T/A SUNNYTOP BAKERY CIABATTA DELLA NONNA) (A.C.N.: 83007075461) |
| File Number: | MLG 1972 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Hartnett |
| Hearing dates: | 16 May 2016 & 11 October 2016 |
| Date of last submission: | 14 December 2016 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 27 March 2017 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitor for the Applicant: | Mr Ibrahim |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Madinah Legal |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Aleksov |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Lawcorp Lawyers |
ORDERS
The proceedings are listed for further hearing on 3 May 2017 at 10.00am as to quantification of the monies owing by the Respondent to the Applicant.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 1972 of 2015
| JIHAD EL SOUKI |
Applicant
And
| MACUSHLA PTY LTD (T/A SUNNYTOP BAKERY CIABATTA DELLA NONNA) |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The proceedings before the Court are an application made under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘the Fair Work Act’) for:
1) underpayment of wages;
2) meal break entitlements;
3) non-payment of superannuation;
4) misrepresentation of workplace rights;
5) failure to provide payslips;
6) contravention of a minimum wage order; and
7) involvement in a contravention of a civil remedy provision.
The evidence before the Court is as follows:-
a)for the Applicant, an affidavit of the Applicant affirmed 27 April 2016, and affidavits of Mr David Altobelli affirmed 27 April 2016, and Mr Mauro Troiani affirmed 27 April 2016.
b)for the Respondent, an affidavit of Mr Ferdinando Iaconis, a director of the Respondent company, sworn 12 May 2016; and affidavits of Ms Nadia Sciolas sworn 12 May 2016, Ms Julia Monea sworn 12 May 2016, Mr Leo Faddoul sworn 15 May 2016, Mr Matthew Nesci affirmed 12 May 2016 and Mr John Cardassis sworn 14 May 2016.
Each of the witnesses of the Applicant and Respondent were cross-examined as to their evidence save for Ms Sciolas and Ms Monea whose evidence was unchallenged. The Applicant gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.
The factual issues to be determined by the Court at this stage in the proceedings are as follows:-
a)when the Applicant commenced working with the Respondent;
b)what the Applicant’s days and hours of work were, including whether the Applicant worked on public holidays; and
c)what the Applicant’s duties were, so as to determine the classification of the Applicant under the relevant award being firstly, the Bread Trade (Victoria) Award 1999 (‘the Bread Award’), followed by, from 22 July 2011, the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010 (‘the Food and Beverage Award’). The Applicant alleged as set out in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Statement of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read El Souki v Macushla Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] FCCA 591
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether Macushla Pty Ltd had breached its contractual obligations to Mr El Souki regarding his notice period and accrued annual leave. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the employer's conduct in representing Mr El Souki's entitlements constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Australian Consumer Law*.
Judge Hartnett found that Macushla Pty Ltd had indeed breached the employment contract by failing to provide the requisite notice period and by miscalculating accrued annual leave. The court reasoned that the terms of the employment contract were clear and that the employer's actions did not align with these contractual obligations. Regarding the Australian Consumer Law claim, the court determined that the employer's representations about Mr El Souki's entitlements were misleading, as they did not accurately reflect the contractual position. The court applied established principles of contract law and consumer protection legislation to reach its conclusions.
The court ordered that Macushla Pty Ltd pay damages to Mr El Souki, representing the amount owing for the insufficient notice period and the underpaid accrued annual leave, along with an additional sum for the misleading or deceptive conduct.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.