FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| OLSEN v WELLARD FEEDS PTY LTD (No.2) | [2008] FMCA 447 |
| INDUSTRIAL LAW – Alleged breach of award – whether award applied to employment of Mill Manager. COSTS – Meaning of without reasonable cause – whether proceedings issued without reasonable cause. |
| Federal Magistrates Act, 1999 (Cth) s.79(3) Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r.13.10 Workplace Relations Act, 1996 (Cth) ss.719(6), 720, 722, 824(1), 824(3) |
| AFMEPKIU v Nestle Australia Ltd [2005] FCA 717 Carpenter v Corona Manufacturing (2002) 122 IR 387 Envotech Pty Ltd (trading as Australian Envelopes) v Goldie (2006) 157 IR 395 Ferrazza v Unimin Australia Limited [2004] AIRC 346 Geneff v Peterson (1986) 19 IR 40 Kanan v Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union (1992) 43 IR 257 Matthews v Australian Postal Corporation [2007] FMCA 1174 Olsen v Wellard Feeds Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 1885 Olsen v Wellard Feeds Pty Ltd [2008] FMCA 320 R v Moore; Ex parte Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia (1978) 140 CLR 470 Spotless Services Australia Ltd v Marsh [2004] FCAFC 155 Standish v University of Tasmania (1989) 28 IR 129 Thompson v Hodder (1989) 29 IR 339 |
| Applicant: | CHELSEA OLSEN |
| Respondent: | WELLARD FEEDS PTY LTD (ACN 009248195) |
| File Number: | PEG 170 of 2007 |
| Judgment of: | Lucev FM |
| Hearing date: | 26 March 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 26 March 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 11 April 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr McCann |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Sparke Hellmore |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Jackson |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | DLA Phillips Fox |
ORDER
The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs of these proceedings, except as otherwise ordered by the Court on 7 November 2007, to be agreed, and if not agreed, to be taxed by a Registrar of this Court.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 170 of 2007
| CHELSEA OLSEN |
Applicant
And
| WELLARD FEEDS PTY LTD (ACN 009248195) |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
By an application made on 22 August 2007 the Applicant sought:
a)a declaration that the Respondent breached clause 29.3.8 of the Award[1] by not paying unused accrued sick leave to Ronald West, an employee of the Respondent, at the date of termination of his employment with the Respondent;
b)an order under s.720 of the Workplace Relations Act, 1996 (Cth)[2] for the Respondent to pay to Mr West as at the date of termination of his employment all unused accrued sick leave owing under clause 29.3.8 of the Award, plus interest under s.722 of the WR Act from the date of termination of Mr West’s employment; and
c)the imposition of a penalty against the Respondent under s.719(6) of the WR Act.
[1] The Award being the Milling Industry – General – Award.
[2] “WR Act”.
The issues that arose in respect of the application were as follows:
a)whether the Respondent was bound by the Award; and
b)if the Respondent was bound by the Award, whether the Award applied to Mr West’s employment.
In Olsen v Wellard Feeds Pty Ltd
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Olsen v Wellard Feeds Pty Ltd (No.2) 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
- [2008] FMCA 447
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the relevant award applied to Olsen's employment as a Mill Manager. Secondly, if the award did apply, whether there had been a breach of that award by the employer. Additionally, the court needed to consider the issue of costs, specifically whether the proceedings were issued without reasonable cause.
In its reasoning, the court found that the award did indeed apply to Olsen's employment. The court detailed the provisions of the award and compared them with the terms of Olsen's employment, concluding that the award's provisions were applicable. Regarding the alleged breach, the court found that there had been no breach of the award by the employer. The court then considered the issue of costs, determining that the proceedings were not issued without reasonable cause, thus rejecting the employer's claim for costs. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the award provisions and the factual circumstances of Olsen's employment.
The final orders of the court were that the award applied to Olsen's employment, there had been no breach of the award, and the employer was not entitled to costs as the proceedings were not issued without reasonable cause.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.