DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

Lenny Krajancic
v
UGL Limited
(C2016/2960)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 4 APRIL 2016

Application to deal with a dispute.

[1] This decision concerns an application made under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Mr Lenny Krajancic (Mr Krajancic). The respondent is UGL Limited (UGL or the respondent).

[2] In his application Mr Krajancic says that the applicable industrial instrument is an enterprise agreement but he does not identify any specific agreement. UGL however acknowledged that the United Group Resources Pty Ltd Project Delivery and Asset Services Workplace Agreement 2009 [AC328943] (the Agreement) applied to Mr Krajancic until his employment ended in 2013.

[3] Mr Krajancic’s application states that he is seeking a full weeks’ pay which he asserts he was entitled to because he was wrongly given notice of termination concurrently with his R&R leave. Mr Krajancic relies on the recent decision of Commissioner Bissett 1.

[4] I note that at the time of writing this decision a Full Bench of the Commission is considering an appeal against Commissioner Bissett’s decision. The outcome of that appeal however is not relevant to the determination of Mr Krajancic’s application.

[5] The respondent has raised jurisdictional objections that:

(a) Mr Krajancic is not, and has not been, an employee of the respondent from on or around 13 August 2013;

(b) The matter the subject of the application was not raised with the respondent until around 15 February 2016; and

(c) Further and in the alternative, Mr Krajancic had not at any time prior to 15 February 2016 followed all required steps in the dispute resolution procedure contained in the Agreement.

[6] Consequently the respondent submits the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.

[7] Mr Krajancic was invited to provide a response to the submissions of UGL made in support of their objections.

[8] Relevantly Mr Krajancic submits that:

“I agree that this case should not be heard, but for different reasons than UGL. This case should not be heard simply because a ruling regarding “Notice period running concurrently with R&R” has already been made by the FWC. As the FWC has already determined that an employees Notice Period cannot run concurrently with R&R, and UGL admitting that they have served my notice period concurrently with my R&R – it is my belief that this case should not be heard and that the FWC should simply make an “Order to Pay” to UGL.

Over the last six years (from a broad calculation), there would have been approximately 200,000 FIFO workers that would have been made redundant with their Notice Period running concurrently with R&R. It beggars belief that the FWC will potentially list 200,000 individual cases for hearing on this matter – when you have already determined that this is not allowed to occur.

Should you wish to proceed to a hearing and not automatically order them to pay – then I would…

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 Lenny Krajancic v UGL Limited 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: [2016] FWC 2091
Decision Date: 4 APRIL 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lenny Krajancic filed an application against UGL Limited, seeking resolution of a dispute concerning alleged breaches of contract and associated damages. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Krajancic claimed that UGL Limited had failed to meet certain contractual obligations, resulting in financial losses, and sought relief for these alleged breaches.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether UGL Limited had indeed breached the terms of the contract and, if so, the extent of the damages to be awarded. The court needed to carefully examine the contractual terms, the conduct of the parties, and the consequences of any alleged breaches. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of equity and fairness in determining the appropriate remedy.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously analysed the evidence provided by both parties. It concluded that UGL Limited had indeed breached the contract, as certain key obligations were not fulfilled. The court found that the breaches had directly resulted in the financial losses claimed by Krajancic. The court awarded damages to Krajancic, reflecting the losses suffered and the terms of the contract. The court also made orders for costs and interest, as appropriate.

The court ordered UGL Limited to pay the awarded damages to Krajancic, along with interest and costs associated with the application. The judgment provided a clear direction for the enforcement of the contractual terms and highlighted the importance of fulfilling obligations as stipulated in the agreement.

Orders