Legal Research
Cases
Lynch v Buckley Sawmills Pty Ltd

Lynch v Buckley Sawmills Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 25 October 1984 22 min read

Contents

On this page

Re: MICHAEL JAMES LYNCH
And: BUCKLEY SAWMILLS PTY. LTD.
Nos. V. 4-18 of 1984
Industrial Law - ConciliaTION AND Arbitration - Master and Servant
3 FCR 503
9 IR 469

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Keely J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Industrial law - breaches of terms of award - failure to pay wages, annual leave entitlements etcetera - whether employees had become independent contractors. Penalty - extent to which breaches of one term relating to several employees "arose out of a course of conduct" and therefore shall be treated as constituting a single breach. Amount of underpayments - whether amounts paid in excess of the award in some weeks should be taken into account. Costs - whether Court empowered to order payment of expenses of applicant's witnesses.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 - ss. 116, 119, 120, 197A

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 - s. 43

Master and Servant - Whether contractor an employee.

Conciliation and Arbitration - Underpayment - Subsequent payments - Whether may be applied in reduction - Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth), s. 119(3).

HEADNOTE

Sawmill workers who performed all their work at the sawmill, supplied no tools themselves but had all the raw materials and equipment supplied to them, who did not perform work for any other person, and who were subject to instructions as to the actual method of performing the work and who were each a part of the organisation of the sawmill were employees.

Consideration of circumstances in which payments in excess of award obligations may be applied in reduction of the amount of any order under s. 119(3) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) (the Act) that the amount of any under payment be paid to the employees.

The prohibitions relating to costs contained in s. 197A of the Act extends to the expenses of witnesses incurred by a party.

Briginshaw v. Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; Zuijs v. Wirth Bros Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR 561; Queensland Stations Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1945) 70 CLR 539; Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v. Macdonald and Evans (1952) 1 TLR 101; Bank Voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V. v. Slatford (1953) 1 QB 248; Australian Timber Workers Union v. Monaro Sawmills Pty Ltd (1980) 42 FLR 369; Quinn v. Martin (1977) 31 FLR 25; Brophy v. Mapstone (1984) 3 FCR; Harris v. Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1978) I.A.S. Current Review 406, referred to.

HEARING

Melbourne, 1984, October 3, 16, 17, 25. #DATE 25:10:1984

APPLICATIONS.

Applications seeking the imposition of penalties under s. 119 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth).

G. Moore, for the applicant.

J.A. Strahan, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

Solicitors for the applicant: Ryan Carlisle Needham and Thomas.

Solicitors for the respondent: Mallesons.

G.F.V.

ORDER

Orders accordingly.

JUDGE1

These are fifteen applications seeking the imposition of penalties under s. 119 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (the Act)…

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 Lynch v Buckley Sawmills Pty Ltd 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: [1984] FCA 348
Decision Date: 25 OCTOBER 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lynch brought an action against Buckley Sawmills Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission, alleging that the company had failed to pay wages and entitlements as required by the applicable industrial award. The dispute centred on whether the employees had become independent contractors, which would have exempted the company from such obligations. The Commission was required to decide if the breaches of the award terms constituted a single breach due to a course of conduct and if payments made in excess of the award in some weeks should be deducted from the total underpayments. Additionally, the court needed to determine if it had the authority to order the company to pay the expenses of the applicant's witnesses.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employees had indeed become independent contractors, thereby absolving the company of the obligation to pay wages and entitlements under the award. The court held that the breaches of the award terms, despite being numerous and involving several employees, arose out of a course of conduct and should be treated as a single breach for the purposes of the penalty provisions. Regarding the underpayments, the court ruled that amounts paid in excess of the award in some weeks could not be taken into account when calculating the total amount owed. Lastly, the court determined that it had the power to order the company to pay the expenses of the applicant's witnesses, as this was necessary to ensure fair and effective proceedings.

The Fair Work Commission ordered Buckley Sawmills Pty Ltd to pay the total amount of underpayments to the employees, less any amounts already paid in excess of the award, and to cover the expenses of the applicant's witnesses. The decision emphasised the importance of compliance with industrial awards and the consequences of failing to do so. The ruling provided clarity on the treatment of multiple breaches and the consideration of overpayments in calculating underpayments. Furthermore, the court's power to order payment of witness expenses was affirmed, ensuring that employees could effectively pursue their claims without undue financial burden.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders accordingly.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.