FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Johnson v CUB Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 219
Continue reading Johnson v Cub Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Johnson v CUB Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 219
- Case
- [2021] FCAFC 219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Johnson v Cub Pty Ltd, Mr Chaya Johnson sought reinstatement to his former position as a C7 Maintenance Fitter at the CUB brewery site in Abbotsford. Mr Johnson, an employee of Chelgrave Contracting Australia Pty Ltd, a labour hire company, obtained an order for reinstatement against Chelgrave. CUB, the entity that employed Mr Johnson for the period in question, did not seek to be joined as a party to the proceedings. CUB subsequently appealed to the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which quashed the reinstatement order on the basis that Chelgrave lacked the contractual power to compel CUB to allow Mr Johnson access to their site after his removal. The Full Bench concluded that reinstatement was inappropriate in all the circumstances.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Full Bench of the FWC erred in quashing the reinstatement order. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Full Bench fell into jurisdictional error by misconceiving its duty, misunderstanding its jurisdiction, failing to apply itself to the prescribed question, or acting on a wrong principle. Additionally, the court considered whether the Full Bench made only a portion of the order that it was not empowered by s 391 to make.
The court concluded that both grounds of review failed. It found that the Full Bench had correctly identified that Chelgrave lacked the contractual power to force CUB to allow Mr Johnson access to their site after his removal. The court held that it was inappropriate to remit the matter to the Full Bench given the speculative nature of any potential compensation claim, especially since Mr Johnson had already received a redundancy payment and back pay dependent on the reinstatement order. Consequently, the court dismissed the originating application for judicial review.
The court made the following order: 1. The originating application be dismissed.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Full Bench of the FWC erred in quashing the reinstatement order. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Full Bench fell into jurisdictional error by misconceiving its duty, misunderstanding its jurisdiction, failing to apply itself to the prescribed question, or acting on a wrong principle. Additionally, the court considered whether the Full Bench made only a portion of the order that it was not empowered by s 391 to make.
The court concluded that both grounds of review failed. It found that the Full Bench had correctly identified that Chelgrave lacked the contractual power to force CUB to allow Mr Johnson access to their site after his removal. The court held that it was inappropriate to remit the matter to the Full Bench given the speculative nature of any potential compensation claim, especially since Mr Johnson had already received a redundancy payment and back pay dependent on the reinstatement order. Consequently, the court dismissed the originating application for judicial review.
The court made the following order: 1. The originating application be dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The originating application be dismissed.
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
No application was made to amend ground 2 to accommodate this conclusion. Even if such an application to amend had been made, it is doubtful leave would have been granted because of the futility of granting relief in circumstances in which Mr Johnson cannot now be restored to his former position. This is especially so given the combination of his redundancy payment, and back pay, both dependent upon reinstatement having validly been ordered, exceeds any compensation that he could have been awarded instead. It would not have been appropriate to remit the matter to the Full Bench in circumstances where there was nothing more than speculation advanced before this Court to suggest that Mr Johnson might possibly be able to secure an award of compensation without both the payments that were made to him being offset to the point of nothing being payable at all, or even theoretically at least, some amount being required to be paid back.Conclusion As both grounds of review have failed, the originating application must be dismissed. Mr Chaya Johnson sought an order by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for his reinstatement to work at the premises of CUB Pty Ltd in Abbotsford. He did not claim to be an employee of CUB. Rather, he claimed to be an employee of Chelgrave Contracting Australia Pty Ltd (Chelgrave), a labour hire company. The proceedings he brought in the FWC were against Chelgrave. CUB was put on notice that he sought reinstatement to work at the CUB premises in Abbotsford but it did not seek to be joined as a party. Mr Johnson succeeded in obtaining an order for reinstatement to what was described as his former position as C7 Maintenance Fitter at the CUB site in Abbotsford. CUB sought and obtained leave to appeal to the Full Bench of the FWC. Before the Full Bench, the contract between CUB and Chelgrave was received. The contract provided for Chelgrave to provide services and personnel to CUB for an agreed term. The personnel requirements were specified in a schedule to the contract. The contract provided that CUB may issue a notice to Chelgrave requiring Chelgrave to remove any personnel from the performance of the services. It further provided that if such a notice was issued that Chelgrave must remove the person from the performance of the services and, at Chelgrave’s cost, replace the person with a suitable replacement. There was no dispute that a notice had been given by CUB to Chelgrave in respect of Mr Johnson. The Full Bench expressed its conclusion on the appeal in the following terms:Having had the benefit of seeing the Contract, it is clear to us that [Mr Johnson] was incapacitated from working at [CUB’s Abbotsford site] because Chelgrave has no contractual power to force [CUB] to allow [Mr Johnson] access to their site after his removal. The order to reinstate [Mr Johnson] to the Abbotsford site was inappropriate in all the circumstances. The phrase ‘inappropriate in all the circumstances’ reflects the terms of s 390 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) which are to the effect that a person who has been unfairly dismissed must be reinstated unless the FWC is satisfied that reinstatement is inappropriate and an order for compensation is appropriate. It is to be noted that s 391(1) then provides that an order for a person’s reinstatement ‘must be an order that the person’s employer at the time of the dismissal reinstate the person’. There is also express provision in s 391(1A) to deal with instances where the position in which the person was employed at the time of dismissal ‘is no longer a position with the person’s employer’ and that position (or an equivalent) is a position with an associated entity of the employer.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.