Minebiz Pty Ltd v Codey

Case [2015] FCA 372

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Minebiz Pty Ltd v Codey [2015] FCA 372

Citation: Minebiz Pty Ltd v Codey [2015] FCA 372
Appeal from: Codey v Minebiz Pty Ltd (Local Court of New South Wales, No. 2013/356509, 12 August 2014)
Parties: MINEBIZ PTY LTD v SCOTT CODEY
File number(s): NSD 901 of 2014
Judge(s): BUCHANAN J
Date of judgment: 24 April 2015
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from Local Court of New South Wales under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – allegation of underpayment of wages under an enterprise agreement – whether employee correctly classified under the enterprise agreement as a ‘Surface Operator’ – whether classification structure in enterprise agreement is referrable to classifications set out in the Mining Industry Award 2010 – whether respondent discharged onus of proof to show relevant employment designation as an ‘Underground Mine Employee’
Legislation:

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 140(2)
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 54(1)(a), 189, 546, 570
Mining Industry Award 2010 (Cth), cll 1, 2.1, 4.1, 4.2, 13, 13.1(a), 13.1(b), 14.2(a), Sch B.1.2, B.2.2, B.2.4, B.3, B.3.3

Minebiz Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2010, cll 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 4.1, Sch 1  
Cases cited: Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Bell IXL Investments Ltd v Life Therapeutics Ltd (2008) 68 ACSR 154
Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1
Cabal v United Mexican States (2001) 108 FCR 311
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306; (1999) 160 ALR 588
Tisdall v Webber (2011) 193 FCR 260
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
Date of hearing: 2, 30 March 2015
Place: Sydney
Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 73
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr I Taylor SC with Mr O Fagir
Solicitor for the Appellant: Campbell Paton & Taylor
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Gibian
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Workers’ Union

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

NSD 901 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE LOCAL COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
BETWEEN:

MINEBIZ PTY LTD
Appellant
AND:

SCOTT CODEY
Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 April 2015

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be allowed.

2.The orders of the Local Court of New South Wales made on 12 August 2014 be set aside and, in their place, it be ordered that the application to that Court be dismissed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

NSD 901 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE LOCAL COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES
BETWEEN:

MINEBIZ PTY LTD
Appellant
AND:

SCOTT CODEY
Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE:

24 April 2015

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

  1. This judgment deals with an…

Continue reading Minebiz Pty Ltd v Codey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Minebiz Pty Ltd v Codey [2015] FCA 372
Case
[2015] FCA 372
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Minebiz Pty Ltd sought to appeal a decision from the Local Court of New South Wales in which it had been found guilty of underpaying its employee, Mr. Codey, in contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue was whether Mr. Codey was correctly classified under the enterprise agreement as a ‘Surface Operator’ or should have been classified as an ‘Underground Mine Employee’ under the Mining Industry Award 2010. The appeal hinged on the classification structure within the enterprise agreement and whether the respondent bore the onus of proving his relevant employment designation.

The court examined whether the classification structure in the enterprise agreement was referrable to the classifications set out in the Mining Industry Award 2010. It was also required to determine if Mr. Codey had discharged the onus of proof to show that he should have been classified as an ‘Underground Mine Employee’. The court concluded that the Local Court was correct in setting aside the classification arrangement in question and dismissed Mr. Codey’s application. The reasoning was based on the insufficiency of evidence presented by Mr. Codey to meet the required standard of proof for his classification as an ‘Underground Mine Employee’.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Local Court made on 12 August 2014 were set aside. In their place, it was ordered that Mr. Codey’s application to the Local Court be dismissed. The decision underscores the importance of clear and sufficient evidence in establishing employment classifications under industrial laws, and it reaffirms the stringent burden of proof on the employee to substantiate their classification claims. The matter of penalty, while not deemed outside the legitimate range, indicates the court's cautious approach in reviewing civil penalties imposed in such disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The orders of the Local Court of New South Wales made on 12 August 2014 be set aside and, in their place, it be ordered that the application to that Court be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

In my view, the Local Court was correct to put this arrangement to one side. Conclusions The orders of the Local Court must be set aside and Mr Codey’s application to that Court must be dismissed. Had I not reached that conclusion, I would not have interfered with the civil penalty imposed which does not seem to me to fall outside a legitimate range, even if I might not have fixed a penalty myself at that level in the circumstances of the present case.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.