Manchin v Miners Tipper Services Pty Ltd

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MANCHIN v MINERS TIPPER SERVICES PTY LTD [2011] FMCA 485

INDUSTRIAL LAW – General protections court application alleging dismissal – reason for dismissal not a proscribed reason.

Fair Work Act 2009, ss.323, 340, 341, 341(1)(a), 343, 345, 361 539(1), 539(2), 545, 546, 569, 570 and 570(2)

Hayward v Rohd Four Pty Ltd (2008) FMCA 1490
Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union v Arnotts Biscuits Limited (2010) FCA 770

Applicant: PAUL MANCHIN

Respondent: MINERS TIPPER SERVICES PTY LTD

File Number: BRG 1172 of 2010

Judgment of: Jarrett FM

Hearing date: 21 February 2011

Date of Last Submission: 21 February 2011

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 21 February 2011

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr W. Boyd

ORDERS

1. The application filed on 24 November 2010 be dismissed.

2. There be no order as to costs.

3. A transcript of these proceedings be provided to Fair Work Australia.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 1172 of 2010

PAUL MANCHIN

Applicant

And

MINERS TIPPER SERVICES PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex tempore

1.This is an application pursuant to the Fair Work Act 2009 – commonly referred to as an application alleging dismissal in contravention of a general protection.  The application was commenced by an application and a form 2 filed on 24 November, 2010. 

2.The application is not particularly helpful.  It does not set out the orders sought, or the basis upon which the applicant seeks them.  There is a little more detail in the form 2. 

3.Mr Manchin seeks orders for compensation, calculated in accordance with appendix B to the form 2 and totalling $25,337.96, unspecified pecuniary penalties to be imposed upon the respondent, and other remedies set out, he says, in appendix C to the form 2.  The “Other” remedies seem to be claims for unpaid allowances totalling $28,234.99. 

4.According to the form 2 “Part G – Contraventions alleged”, Mr Manchin says that the basis of his claims are contraventions of ss.323, 340, 343 and 345 of the Fair Work Act 2009.  Each of those provisions is a civil remedy provision for the purposes of the Act: s.539(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

5.Subsection 539(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 permits Mr Manchin to apply to this court for orders in relation to the contraventions alleged by him. Section 545 of the Fair Work Act 2009 sets out the orders that this court can make on this application.  They include orders for injunctive relief, orders awarding compensation for loss that a person has suffered because of a contravention of the Act and orders for reinstatement.  Under s.546 the court can order the imposition of pecuniary penalties. 

6.The tale in this case commences with the applicant, Mr Manchin, coming across an advertisement for a job with the respondent.  It was advertising for a truck driver and Mr Manchin, on the evidence, made contact with one of the directors of the respondent. 

7.There was a meeting between them…