Hannan v Waggamba Medical Centre

Link copied
Case Copied 33 min read

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hannan v Waggamba Medical Centre [2013] QMC 23

PARTIES:

ELYSE LEE HANNAN

(plaintiff)

v

WAGGAMBA MEDICAL CENTRE PTY LTD

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

M2/13

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Employment Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Goondiwindi

DELIVERED ON:

8 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 September 2013, 17 October 2013

MAGISTRATE:

Lee GC

ORDER:

The defendant employer pay the plaintiff $1119.74

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – “Employment claim” – resignation of employee plaintiff – whether accrued annual leave upon termination – if so, recovery of accrued leave and annual leave loading – recovery of last week of wages

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 16, s 20, s 55, s 56, s 59, s 61, s 87, s 90, s 535, s 536
Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth), r 3.31, r 3.44
Magistrates Courts Act 1921(Qld), s 42A, s 42B

Nurses Award 2010

Ryan v Whitehaven Coal Mining Pty Ltd, [2013] NSWLC 11 (26 July 2013)

COUNSEL:

K Crank for plaintiff

L Wilson (solicitor) for defendant

SOLICITORS:

Queensland Nursing Union for plaintiff

Doyle Wilson Solicitors for defendant

  1. On 1 March 2013 the plaintiff commenced an “Employment claim” in this court pursuant to Part 5A of the Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (the Act)[1]claiming $5820.35 comprising $4188.81 accrued annual leave, associated leave loading of $733.04 and one weeks pay of $898.50 (gross)[2].

    [1] Part 5A was inserted in to the Magistrates Courts Act 1921 by Part 6 of the Industrial Relations Act and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007 (No 23 of 2007) with effect from 1 January 2008 (s 2(1));

    [2] Amended Employment Claim dated and filed 7 August 2013;

  2. In its defence the defendant opposed the claim in its entirety although during addresses at end of the trial conceded that part of the final week’s wages of $898.50 ie $448.50 remains owing[3]. The defendant had paid $450[4] by three $150 instalments after the plaintiff’s employment ceased[5]. That part of the claim therefore does not remain an issue although, as a trial, still had not been paid.

    [3] At para [8] of affidavit of Practice manager Paul Jones conceded that $311.14 was owed. However, it appears he arrived at that figure by deducting the $450 from the net pay of $761.14;  

    [4] $898.50 less $450 = $448.50;

    [5] Paragraphs 3 & 4 submissions for the defendant; para [8] affidavit of Paul Jones; exhibit B affidavit of the Plaintiff (her bank statements); exhibit 1 (original wages book); 

  3. There is no dispute that this is an “Employment Claim” as defined in Part 5A. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant as a registered nurse. She commenced employment as a casual on 17 August 2010, became permanent full time on


    12 January 2011[6] and resigned by letter dated 1 August 2012[7] effective 15 August 2012. Her annual wages were not more than $98000 per annum and that the claim arises out of, among other things, a breach of the Nurses Award 2010 made under the Fair Work Act 2009

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hannan v Waggamba Medical Centre 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
[2013] QMC 23
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hannan v Waggamba Medical Centre, the plaintiff, a former employee, sought compensation for unpaid accrued annual leave and annual leave loading, as well as part of her last week's wages. The defendant, the Waggamba Medical Centre, contested these claims. The dispute was heard and determined by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the plaintiff had accrued annual leave that remained unpaid upon her resignation, and if so, the amount due for these unpaid leave days and the associated loading. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff was owed part of her last week's wages and, if so, the amount due, along with interest.

The court found that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that she had 23.31 days of untaken accrued leave for which she had not been paid. The plaintiff's main evidence was a document contained in Exhibit "C" to her affidavit. However, the court was not satisfied with this evidence and concluded that the plaintiff had been paid for 37 out of the 39.31 days of annual leave. Therefore, there were 2.31 days (or 17.556 hours) of accrued annual leave for which she had not been paid. The court accepted that the plaintiff was also owed $448.50 which was part of her last week's wages. The total amount owed, including interest, was calculated to be $1119.74.

In conclusion, the court ordered the defendant employer to pay the plaintiff $1119.74. The court also noted that it would hear the parties regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defendant employer pay the plaintiff $1119.74

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

Annexure “A” to this judgement is a comparative calculation. For the 37 days of taken leave referred to above, the end result is that the plaintiff would have been better off by $63.14 if the loadings had been calculated according to the award. As all calculations so far were based on 14%, I will include this amount. Conclusion The plaintiff bears the onus of proof in establishing on the balance of probabilities that she has 23.31 days of untaken accrued leave for which she has not been paid. The main thrust of her case was the document contained in Exhibit “C” to her affidavit. For reasons given, she has failed to discharge that onus. I am satisfied on balance that she has been paid for 37 out of the 39.31 days of annual leave at her applicable base rate as well as the loading for those days. Therefore, there is 2.31 days (or 17.556 hours[43]) accrued annual leave for which she has not been paid. Her base rate at the time of termination was $23.64 per hour. This comes to $415.02384. Add 17.5% loading of $72.629172 comes to $487.65. [43] 7.6 hours per day multiplied by 2.31 days (based on a 38 hour five day week); I also accept that the plaintiff is owed $448.50 which is part of the last week’s wages. While the Wages Book records a net amount of $761.14 for the week ending 7 August 2012, no such payment was in fact credited to her account within the usual day or two. The net amount of $761.14 in the previous week ending 31 July 2012 was credited on 2 August 2012 and the net amount of $761.14 in the following week ending 14 August 2012 was credited 15 August 2012. Subsequently, the defendant paid $450 by $150 instalments to reduce the amount owing. The total principal amount owing therefore is $1023.91 ($487.65 + $448.50 + $24.62176 [see para [75] above] + $63.14 [see para [76] above]). Interest calculated on the Queensland Courts interest calculator[44] on $1023.91 from 15 August 2012 to 3 September 2013 comes to $95.83.[44] Adopting the same parameters in the interest calculation by the plaintiff based on the original claim; I give judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1119.74 ($1023.91 + $95.83). I will hear the parties as to costs.Annexure AComparative Table of Loading Calculations – 14% and 17.5%Table 1

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.