Flinders Ports Pty Ltd v Woolford

This matter concerned an appeal to the Full Court of the Industrial Relations Court of South Australia concerning an entitlement to long service leave. The appeal was brought by Flinders Ports Pty Ltd (the appellant) against the personal representative of the deceased, Mr Woolford (the respondent), who had been employed as a casual worker. The dispute centred on whether Mr Woolford had accrued a sufficient period of continuous service to be entitled to payment in lieu of long service leave upon the termination of his employment.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether Mr Woolford's employment constituted continuous service for the purposes of the *Long Service Leave Act 1987* (SA), and whether the Industrial Relations Court retained jurisdiction to make an order for payment in lieu of long service leave, given the timing of the application relative to the termination of employment. Specifically, the Court had to determine the effective date of termination of Mr Woolford's employment and consider the impact of section 13(4) of the Act, which imposes a time limit for making such applications.

The Court considered whether Mr Woolford's employment was governed by a series of ad hoc contracts or a single, overarching contract of service. It was held that Mr Woolford's employment was characterised by a single contract of service, which was lawfully terminated by notice on 23 September 2011. This conclusion was significant as it meant the three-year time limit under section 13(4) of the Act did not bar the claim, as the application was made within that period from the effective termination date. The Court also determined that a period of absence due to illness did not break the continuity of service for long service leave purposes.

The appeal was ultimately allowed. The Court found that while Mr Woolford was entitled to payment in lieu of long service leave, the calculation of this entitlement, given the limited work performed in the period immediately preceding the termination, resulted in a negligible sum. The order of the Industrial Relations Court was set aside, and the matter was remitted for recalculation of the entitlement in accordance with the Court's reasons.