Fair Work Ombudsman v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Fair Work Ombudsman v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 408

Citation: Fair Work Ombudsman v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 408
Parties: FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN v RAMSEY FOOD PROCESSING PTY LTD and STUART RAMSEY
File number: NSD 1005 of 2010
Judge: BUCHANAN J
Date of judgment: 20 April 2012
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – breaches of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and an industrial award – penalty – whether the breaches arose out of a single course of conduct
Legislation: Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 2000
Cases cited: Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Holloway (2000) 45 ATR 278; [2000] FCA 1245
Gibbs v The Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Altona (1992) 37 FCR 216
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Q R Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 652
Fair Work Ombudsman v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2011) 198 FCR 174
Q R Limited v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (2010) 204 IR 142; [2010] FCAFC 150
Date of hearing: 11 April 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 10
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms C Howell
Solicitor for the Applicant: FCB Lawyers
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: Mr R Moore
Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Hannigans Solicitors

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

NSD 1005 of 2010
BETWEEN:

FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN
Applicant
AND:

RAMSEY FOOD PROCESSING PTY LTD
First Respondent

STUART RAMSEY
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 APRIL 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd pay to the Commonwealth monetary penalties in the amount of $96,000 within 14 days of this judgment.

2.Stuart Ramsey pay to the Commonwealth monetary penalties in the amount of $19,200 within 14 days of this judgment.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

NSD 1005 of 2010
BETWEEN:

FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN
Applicant
AND:

RAMSEY FOOD PROCESSING PTY LTD
First Respondent

STUART RAMSEY
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE:

20 APRIL 2012

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 19 October 2011 I found that the first respondent had committed breaches of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the WR Act”) and the Federal Meat Industry (Processing) Award 2000 (Fair Work Ombudsman v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (2011) 198 FCR 174 (“the earlier judgment”)) and that the second respondent was knowingly involved in those breaches. The second respondent is to be treated, therefore, as having contravened the same provisions in his own right (see WR Act s 728(1)). The breaches involved failures to make certain payments to employees at the time their employment was terminated. It is…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fair Work Ombudsman v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd (No 2) 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2012] FCA 408
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Ombudsman filed a complaint against Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd and Stuart Ramsey, the company's director, for alleged breaches of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and an industrial award. The dispute was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the court was tasked with determining whether the breaches were the result of a single course of conduct, which would affect the penalties imposed on the respondents.

The primary legal issue was whether the breaches of the Workplace Relations Act and the industrial award were a single course of conduct or separate incidents. If the breaches were found to be a single course of conduct, the penalties would be aggregated, leading to a higher penalty. The court also needed to consider whether the penalties imposed were appropriate given the severity and frequency of the breaches.

The court found that the breaches were a single course of conduct, as they stemmed from a systematic failure to comply with the relevant industrial instruments. The court emphasised the importance of enforcing workplace laws to protect employees and ensure fair and safe working conditions. The penalties imposed were deemed appropriate given the persistent nature of the breaches and the need for deterrence. The court ordered Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd to pay a penalty of $96,000 and Stuart Ramsey to pay a penalty of $19,200 within 14 days of the judgment. These penalties were intended to hold the respondents accountable for their actions and to deter future breaches of workplace laws.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd pay to the Commonwealth monetary penalties in the amount of $96,000 within 14 days of this judgment.

2. Stuart Ramsey pay to the Commonwealth monetary penalties in the amount of $19,200 within 14 days of this judgment.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.