Nick Tsiftelidis v Crown Melbourne Limited

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NICK TSIFTELIDIS v CROWN MELBOURNE LIMITED [2012] FMCA 922

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Small claim – claim for allowance – interpretation of workplace agreement – orders and directions for hearing – non compliance – application for an adjournment – adjournment refused – application dismissed for non compliance.

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.548
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r.13.03A & 13.03B

Black v Young Republic & Anor (2012) FMCA 729
Oceanic Coal Australia Proprietary Limited v Parker [2010] FCR 1018
Manildra Flour Mills Manufacturing Proprietary Limited v National Union of Workers [2012] FCA 1010
University of New South Wales and Huang [2012] FCA 208

Applicant: NICK TSIFTELIDIS

Respondent: CROWN MELBOURNE LIMITED

File Number: (P)MLG 526 of 2012

Judgment of: O’Sullivan FM

Hearing date: 21 September 2012

Date of Last Submission: 21 September 2012

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 21 September 2012

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms J. Williamson

ORDERS

1. The Applicant’s oral application for an adjournment is refused.

2. The Application filed on 4 May 2012 be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.03B(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 526 of 2012

NICK TSIFTELIDIS

Applicant

And

CROWN MELBOURNE LIMITED

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Before the court today, 21 September 2012, are proceedings brought in the court’s small claims list by Nick Tsiftelidis (“the applicant”) against Crown Melbourne Limited (“the respondent”).

2. The applicant filed an application on 4 March 2012 (accompanied by a Form 5) which sought to bring a small claim under the Fair Work Act 2009.

3. The applicant is a sports consultant employed by the respondent.

   
   

   The applicant, according to his Form 5, been employed since 2007 and works at the respondent’s premises in Melbourne.

4. The application was given a first return date of 5 June 2012. On that occasion the applicant appeared represented by United Voice (his union representative). The respondent appeared represented by its in-house legal counsel.

5. The form accompanying the application filed on 4 May 2012 identified at part G the relevant terms of the workplace agreement which the applicant contended were relevant to his small claim. In particular there were clauses 31.1 of the respondent’s 2006 Enterprise Agreement and clause 33.1 of the 2010 workplace agreement which were in the same terms and provided:

   “Where uniforms are required to be worn, they will be provided to employees by the company. The uniforms remain at all times the property of the company. The company will launder the uniforms (including the apparel of kitchen personnel) at no cost to employees. However, a full time employee will be paid a fortnightly allowance of $28.50 and a part time or casual employee will be paid a fortnightly allowance of $14.35 in circumstances where the company requires the employee to launder their uniforms.”

6. At Part H of the applicant’s Form 5 he particularised the claim that he sought to make being by way of a claim for an allowance…