Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations v Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd & Anor

The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (the Minister) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Federal Court concerning the interpretation of the *Workplace Relations Act 1996* (Cth) (the Act). The appeal concerned whether Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd and its subsidiary, Gribbles Group Pty Ltd (the respondents), had contravened the Act by failing to provide certain employees with a notice of termination of employment that complied with the minimum notice periods prescribed by the Act. The dispute arose from the respondents' practice of providing employees with notice of termination that included periods of paid leave, such as annual leave and long service leave, which the Minister argued did not count towards the statutory minimum notice period.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether, for the purposes of calculating the minimum period of notice of termination of employment required by section 170CM of the Act, periods of paid leave taken by an employee could be included. The Minister contended that the statutory minimum notice period was intended to provide an employee with a period of actual employment or a period in lieu of employment, and that paid leave, being a period of absence from work for which the employee was paid, did not satisfy this purpose. The respondents argued that the Act did not expressly exclude periods of paid leave from being counted towards the notice period and that, in the absence of such an exclusion, they should be included.

The High Court, by majority, held that periods of paid leave, such as annual leave and long service leave, could be included in the calculation of the minimum notice period required by section 170CM of the Act. The majority reasoned that the language of section 170CM did not mandate that the notice period must be a period of actual work. Instead, it stipulated a minimum duration of notice, and the Act did not prohibit the employer from utilising periods of paid leave to satisfy this minimum. The Court distinguished between the purpose of notice of termination, which is to inform an employee of the end of their employment, and the purpose of paid leave, which is for rest and recreation. The Court found that the Act did not require these purposes to be mutually exclusive in the context of notice.

The appeal was dismissed.