FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McAlister v Yara Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCCA 1409
ORDERS
SYG 463 of 2016
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read McAlister v Yara Australia 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] FCCA 1409
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the extent of Ms McAlister's responsibilities and the authority she possessed in her role as an employee of Yara Australia Pty Ltd. Specifically, the court needed to assess the scope of her duties concerning logistics, financial approvals, contractual agreements, and human resources matters, particularly in the period leading up to April 2015. The court's findings on these matters would inform the overall assessment of her employment and the circumstances surrounding her departure from the company.
The court's reasoning focused on the detailed evidence presented regarding Ms McAlister's employment contract and her subsequent duties. The initial offer of employment in November 1996 outlined her role as Administration Manager with specific responsibilities and remuneration. Over time, her duties expanded significantly, as evidenced by her involvement in arranging stock orders, managing shipping schedules, dealing with customs clearance agents, overseeing product distribution, processing payments, signing various company documents including cheques and tax forms, and managing employee contracts and benefits. Her participation in the Management Committee from 2012 further underscored the breadth of her responsibilities. The court considered this extensive and varied scope of duties in its determination.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
According to Mr Haugen’s evidence, Ms McAlister was instrumental in the early years of the Australian operation. Ms McAlister’s Role: Responsibilities and Remuneration As noted earlier, Ms McAlister was offered employment by Mr Haugen in November 1996. That offer of employment, which she ultimately accepted, was as follows:Employment Contract ProposalbetweenJanelle McAlisterandHydro Agri Australia Pty LtddatedSydney, November 11th, 1996Title: Administration ManagerCommencement: January 1st, 1997Gross Salary: A$ 52,000Annual year end bonuses: One Month Gross SalarySuperannuation: 10%Leave Loading: 17.5%Vacation: 4 weeks annuallyHealth Insurance: Yes, details to be agreed uponCompany car: Yes, details to be agreed uponMobile Phone/Private Phone: Yes, details to be agreed uponAll other details to be according to the rules and regulations set forth by the appropriate Australia government authority(ies) between employer and employee. On or about 5 January 1997, Mr Haugen, in consultation with Ms McAlister, prepared a Position Description for Ms McAlister’s role, tilted “Administration/Operations Manager”. Included in the position description were the following:(a)The basic role function was described as “to be responsible for the administrative and operational functions of Hydro Agri Australia Pty Ltd”(b)Accountabilities included:(i)Arranging ordering of stock;(ii)Maintaining shipping schedule;(iii)Receipt and distribution of shipping documents. Dealing directly with customs clearance agents to ensure that the containers are cleared and delivered most cost efficiently;(iv)Arranging for collection of product from wharf and distribute to warehouse/customer depending on order type;(v)Arranging for release of product from our warehouses; and(vi)Arrange for payment of all invoices.(c)The role included human relations responsibilities. From the commencement of her role at Yara, Ms McAlister was responsible for logistics, which she described in her oral evidence as:Organising the orders to be placed in Norway, receiving the shipment details, forwarding the documents to our broker and arranging for clearance of the goods, and delivery to the warehouse. And then sale of the goods on receipt of the order… Customers would order product…. I had arranged for the warehouse to release the goods. Sometimes the customer would collect them, and other times I would arrange for delivery to the customer. Until April 2015, Ms McAlister’s role with Yara was wide and varied, and included many responsibilities. By way of example:(a)After Ms McAlister took on human resource responsibilities from early 1997, her duties included matters such as preparing contracts of employment, arranging company cars and other salary benefits for employees, signing warning and termination letters, salary increase letters, payment of all salaries, superannuation and reimbursement of expenses;(b)Ms McAlister was responsible for the approval and payment of invoices received by the business. She was also responsible for processing of all orders received to be released from warehouses, delivery of goods to customers, signing cheques, tax documents, car leases, contracts for customs brokers and warehousing providers;(c)Ms McAlister was responsible for regularly signing shipping line authorities to release goods to an agent authorising them to collect the goods on behalf of Yara and transport them to the required location. If containers were sold to customers whilst still on water, Ms McAlister was required to sign authorities for customs brokers in order to clear the goods through customs and arrange for collection of shipping containers; and(d)From 2012, Ms McAlister was part of the Management Committee.