Legal Research
Cases
Jackson v Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd

Jackson v Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd

Case [1997] IRCA 281 17 October 1997

Employee vs Independent Contractor

Termination of Employment

Reinstatement

Compensation Orders

Employment & Labour Law

Type to search within this case.

DECISION NO:281/97

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INDUSTRIAL LAW - EMPLOYEES OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS - Discussion of indicia of nature of relationship - Whether express contractual terms necessarily indicate whether worker is employee or independent contractor -

INDUSTRIAL LAW - DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE AWARD - Construction of award provisions - Meaning of the term “on-site construction work” - Whether workers were overpaid under an award - Whether employer bound to compensate workers for under-award payments - Whether employees estopped from claiming payment owed under an award -

INDUSTRIAL LAW - WAS EMPLOYMENT TERMINATED AT THE INITIATIVE OF THE EMPLOYER? -Doctrine of “constructive discharge” of employment - meaning of phrase “termination of employment” - REMEDY - Whether reinstatement would be impracticable - Whether continued union activity on part of employee would create impracticability - Delay caused by actions of applicant - Whether applicant failed to mitigate loss

Industrial Relations Act 1988

Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16
Massey v Crown Life Insurance Co (1978) 1 WLR 676
Australian Mutual Provident Society v Chaplin (1978) 18 ALR 385
Re Porter; Re Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (1989) 34 IR 179
Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Glynburn Contractors (Salisbury) Pty Ltd (1990) 34 IR 138
Universal Tankships (Inc) Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation [1983] AC 366
Gurran v Tarbook Pty Ltd (unreported, Industrial Relations Court of Australia, 13 September 1996)
Vabu Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 33 ATR 537
Ray v Radano (1967) 67 AR(NSW) 471
Poletti v Ecob (No. 2) (1989) 31 IR 321
Josephison v Walker (1914) 18 CLR 691
Beckford Nominees Pty Ltd v Shell Company of Australia (1986) 73 ALR 373
Kid v Savage River Mines (1984) 6 FCR 398
The Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics (No. 2) (1995) 62 IR 200
Rheinberger v Huxley Marketing Pty Ltd (1996) 67 IR 154
Anthony Smith & Associates Pty Ltd v Sinclair (1996) 67 IR 240
Perkins v Grace Worldwide (Aust) Pty Ltd (unreported, Industrial Relations Court of Australia, 7 February 1997)
Patterson v Newcrest Mining Limited (unreported, Industrial Relations Court of Australia, 6 June 1996)
Nicolson v Heaven and Earth Gallery Pty Ltd (1994) 1 IRCR 199
Australian Workers’ Union v Federated Engine Drivers and Firemens Associations of Australasia (1992) 44 IR 453
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273

MARTIN JACKSON and RANDAL WILSON v MONADELPHOUS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

No. SI 1507 of 1995, 1517 of 1995, 1516 of 1995, 1518 of 1995, 1030 of 1995

MOORE J
MELBOURNE (HEARD IN ADELAIDE)
17 OCTOBER 1997

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS                 )  General Distribution
  )
COURT OF AUSTRALIA  )
  )
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY )

NO SI 1507, 1516, 1030 of 1995

BETWEEN: MARTIN JACKSON

Applicant

NO SI 1517, 1518 of 1995

AND: RANDAL WILSON

Applicant
AND: MONADELPHOUS ENGINEERING

ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Respondent

JUDGE: Moore J

PLACE: Melbourne (Heard in Adelaide)

DATE: 17 October 1997

ORDER OF THE COURT

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jackson v Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd [1997] IRCA 281
Case: [1997] IRCA 281
Decision Date: 17 October 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jackson v Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd involved five applications filed by Martin Jackson and Randal Wilson against Monadelphous, seeking relief under various sections of the Industrial Relations Act 1988. The applicants contended that they were employees of Monadelphous and were underpaid and unfairly dismissed, while Monadelphous argued they were independent contractors and thus not entitled to the claimed benefits. The court had to determine whether Jackson and Wilson were employees, if their employment was governed by specific awards, whether Jackson's employment was terminated at the initiative of Monadelphous, and what remedy, if any, should be ordered.

The court found that Jackson and Wilson were not employees but independent contractors, as evidenced by their signed contracts acknowledging their status. Despite this, the court ruled that they were entitled to certain payments under the Metal Industry Award 1984. Regarding Jackson's termination, the court concluded that it was initiated by Monadelphous, despite the company's arguments to the contrary. The court ordered Jackson's reinstatement to his previous position and awarded him compensation for the period of eight months following his termination, amounting to $35,200. The court also dismissed the other applications filed by Jackson and Wilson.

Orders