Kramer & Anor v Punthill Apartment Hotels Pty Ltd & Anor

The applicants, Lilli Kramer and Muthumuni Chalitha De Silva, brought proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia against Punthill Apartment Hotels Pty Ltd and Robin Lynne Caras. The applicants alleged that the first respondent contravened the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) and the *Fair Work Regulations 2009* (Cth) by underpaying them and failing to keep proper employment records. They also alleged that the second respondent was accessorialy liable for these contraventions. The first applicant further claimed a breach of her employment contract regarding her salary. A central dispute concerned whether the first respondent's business, Punthill Burwood, constituted a 'hotel' or a 'retail licensed establishment' for the purposes of the *Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010*.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Primarily, it needed to ascertain whether the *Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010* applied to the applicants' employment, specifically concerning the managerial staff classification. This involved interpreting the definition of 'hotel' and 'retail licensed establishment' within the award, considering the nature of the first respondent's business as serviced apartments. The court also had to determine if the first respondent's registration under Victorian legislation and its self-description as a 'hotel' were determinative of its classification under the award. Finally, the court needed to consider the first applicant's contractual claim regarding her salary.

In its reasoning, the court applied established principles of award interpretation, emphasising a practical approach that considers the award's context, purpose, and the ordinary meaning of its terms, while avoiding overly literal or technical interpretations. The court found that the *Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010* distinguishes between 'serviced apartments' and 'hotels', and that the evidence demonstrated the first respondent operated serviced apartments, characterised by self-contained facilities like kitchens and laundry, which differentiated them from traditional hotels. The court gave limited weight to the first respondent's self-description as a 'hotel' in its publications, focusing instead on the actual nature of the business. It also noted that the award's historical context and the exclusion of motels from similar classifications in prior decisions supported the conclusion that serviced apartments were not intended to be covered by the managerial staff provisions for hotels. Consequently, the court determined that the applicants were not covered by the managerial staff classification under the award.

The applications made by the applicants were dismissed.