Lacson v Australian Postal Corporation - [2018] FCCA 511

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LACSON v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

[2018] FCCA 511

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Multi-hiring – whether respondent paid applicant full entitlements to overtime, rest relief and meal allowance – whether applicant’s two roles at respondent applied cumulatively for purposes of calculating entitlements under applicable enterprise agreements – operation of section 52(2) of the Fair Work Act – hours worked by applicant not calculated cumulatively – no breach of enterprise agreement.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009, ss.50, 51, 52, 53

Cases cited:

ALDI Foods Pty Limited v Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees Association [2017] HCA 53
Amcor Ltd v CFMEU (2005) 222 CLR 241
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation v Eastern Health [2013] FCAFC 137
Australian Tramway Employees Association v Australian Tramways Employees Association (1936) 36 CLR 179
City of Wanneroo v ASU (2006) 153 IR 426
Queensland Independent Education Union of Employees v Moreton Bay College [2002] QIRComm 175

Polan v Goulburn Valley Health [2016] FCA 440

Re Hospitality Industry – Accommodation, Hotels, Resorts and Gaming Award (1997) IR 250 (per Ross VP, Drake D.P. and Wilks C.)
Spotless Services Australia – Hospitality Industry (General Award 2010) (2009) AIRCFB 992
Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia v Givoni Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1406

Transport Workers Union of AustraliaPty Ltd v Linfox Australia (2014) 318 ALR 54

Applicant:

ROBERT LACSON

Respondent:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

File Number:

MLG 2455 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge McNab

Hearing date:

18 September 2017

Date of Last Submission:

1 March 2018

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

8 March 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr McKenna

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Tracey

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Minter Ellison

ORDERS

The application filed 10 November 2016 be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 2455 of 2016

ROBERT LACSON

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This case concerns the questions of:
a)Whether the respondent failed to pay the applicant his full entitlements to overtime entitlement under the Australia Post Fair Work Agreement 2010 (‘2010 Agreement’) and the Australia Post Fair Work Agreement 2013 (‘2013 Agreement’);
b)Whether the respondent failed to pay the applicant his full entitlements to rest relief entitlement under the 2010 Agreement and the 2013 Agreement; and
c)Whether the respondent failed to pay the applicant his full entitlements to meal allowance entitlement under the 2010 Agreement and the 2013 Agreement.
By an amended statement of claim filed 10 November 2016, the applicant alleges that:
a)On or about 26 February 2001, Australia Post employed the applicant on a casual basis at the Collingwood Post Shop on a fixed term contract.
b)On or about 2 April 2001, Australia Post employed the applicant in a role as a Postal Sorting Officer at Port Melbourne on a permanent, ongoing basis.
c)On or about 18 February 2002, Australia Post employed the applicant in an additional role as a Postal Delivery Officer at Collingwood on a permanent, ongoing basis (‘PDO…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lacson v Australian Postal Corporation 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: [2018] FCCA 511
Decision Date: 8 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Lacson v Australian Postal Corporation*, the Federal Court of Australia considered a dispute between Mr. Lacson and Australia Post concerning allegations of unlawful discrimination. Mr. Lacson, an employee of Australia Post, alleged that he had been subjected to discrimination on the basis of his race and that this discrimination had led to adverse actions being taken against him.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Australia Post had engaged in unlawful discrimination against Mr. Lacson, contrary to the provisions of the *Racial Discrimination Act 1975* (Cth). This involved determining whether the actions taken by Australia Post were based on Mr. Lacson's race and whether those actions had the effect of disadvantaging him.

Judge McNab found that Mr. Lacson had not established that the actions taken by Australia Post were motivated by his race. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the *Racial Discrimination Act 1975*, focusing on the need to prove a causal link between the alleged discriminatory conduct and the disadvantage suffered. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that race was a factor in the decisions made by Australia Post concerning Mr. Lacson.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Mr. Lacson's application.

Orders