Poulos, Peter Anthony v Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd

[1985] FCA 136

Nbl Id Bn L U B L 1 ~ H d J

./<. 3 ’

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTR4LIA)

1

1 3 6,	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRI’I’ORY	)	No. ACT 1 0 o f 1984
1
DISI’RICT REGISTRY	1 1
INDUSTRIAL DIVlSION

On Appeal from a s m g l e J u d g e

o f t h e F e d e r a l Court o f A u s t r a l i a

Between : PETER AKTHONY POULOS

(Appe l l an t )

And:

-	WALTONS STORES	(INTERSTATE)
LIMITED

(Respondent)

Coram: Smithers, Keely and Gray JJ.

Date :	2 9	March	1985
~
Canberra

COUCLUSlOiJS AS '1'0 'l, .n CLASSlFlCATlUN

OF TIIE APPELLANT 'S

EMPLOYMENT

THE COURT:

This i s an appea l aga ins t an o rder by t h e t r i a l judge dismissing

a c la im by the appe l l an t unde r 5.123 o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n 6

A r b i t r a t i o n Act 1904 f o r a sum s a i d t o b e due t o him as wages

p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e R e t a i l & Wholesale Shop

Employees ( A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y ) Award 1968. Subject

t o q u e s t i o n s o f law t h e c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n i s whether the work

proved to have been performed by t h e a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t

was work which f a l l s w i t h i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n number 4 i n

c l ause 5 of the Award. The t e r m s o f t h a t c l a s s i f i c a t l o n a r e

"orderperson and outdoor orderperson, namely

employees engaged i n c o l l e c t i n g o r d e r s a n d / o r

s o l i c i t i n g b u s i n e s s a n d / o r s e l l i n g away from

the employer ' s p lace o f bus iness"

The f ind ing o f t he l ea rned Judge was t h a t t h e work performed

by t h e a p p e l l a n t was n o t work w i t h i n t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . He

s a i d : "What he i s employed t o do i s t o go to houses

and measure and quote for f loor covering. Al though he may

i n some ins tances be the f i rs t po in t o f con tac t w i th a p o t e n t i a l

customer (as , f o r example, when h e a t t e n d s t o a person who comes

t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s r e t a i l s t o r e e n q u i r i n g a b o u t f l o o r c o v e r i n g s

a t a t ime when t h e a p p l i c a n t i s a c t i n g a s a salesman behind the

c o u n t e r ) ,	t h a t	i s the	excep t iona l	r a the r	t han	t he	no rma l	cou r se
of events ."

His Honour took the view t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was r e q u i r e d

t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e d o m i n a n t f e a t u r e o f h i s d u t i e s a n s w e r

t h e d e s c r i p t i o n i n t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . I t i s ou r v i ew tha t

t he ques t ion is n o t t o be reso lved by r e f e r e n c e t o what features

2 .

of the work performed were the dominant ones but ra ther whether the

work aerformed was work o f t h e n a t u r e a n d q u a l i t y f u l f i l l i n g

t h e t e r m s o f t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . The ev idence o f t he appe l l an t

was uncontradicted and no reason was sugges ted by the l ea rned

Judge nor submi t ted to us by counsel why tha t ev idence shou ld

not be accepted. From t h a t e v i d e n c e i t i s i n o u r v iew es tab l i shed

t h a t t h e	Work	o f t h e a p p e l l a n t	i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g o p e r a t i o n s ,
namely :

(a) a t t e n d i n g t h e homes o f p o t e n t i a l c a r p e t p u r c h a s e r s

t o measure the amount of carpet required for the

customers ' purposes;

(b) o f f e r i n g a d v i c e a s t o t h e t y p e s o f f l o o r coverings

ava i l ab le f rom the r e sponden t and mos t su i t ab le fo r

the customer;

(c) ca l cu la t ing and quo t ing t he p r i ces o f t he va r ious

op t ions open to t he cus tomer ;

(a) advis ing the customer as t o t h e c r e d i t a n d t e r m s o f

c r e d i t a v a i l a b l e ;

[e) o b t a i n i n g t h e s i g n a t u r e o f the cus tomer to an o rder

i f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n was concluded.

The ev idence does no t d i sc lose the p ropor t ion of v i s i t s of the

appe l l an t t o cus tomers ' homes on which an o r d e r was a c t u a l l y

signed. But it is c l e a r t h a t t h i s was always an object

which i t was t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s d u t y t o p u r s u e a n d t h a t h e was

s u c c e s s f u l i n t h i s on occasions. The evidence was t h a t i n some

cases an o r d e r r e s u l t e d s t r a i g h t away a n d i n o t h e r s an o r d e r

never r e s u l e d i n f u r t h e r c a s e s it r e s u l t e d a f t e r some

delay. I t was n o t s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e number o f cases i n lihlch the

a p p e l l a n t o b t a i n e d a n a c t u a l o r d e r on t h e s p o t was insignificant'

3.

But t h e i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i s t h a t i t was h i s d u t y t o o b t a i n o n e

i f he cou ld bu t , i n any even t t o p romote an u l t ima te s a l e .

The a rgument pu t to us on th i s appea l by t he r e sponden t was

t h a t a c c e p t e d by the l earned judge , namely , tha t in the

g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f c a s e s , t h e i n i t i a l a p p r o a c h on beha l f o f t he

r e sponden t t o a po ten t i a l cus tomer was by what i s c a l l e d a

" t r a v e l l e r c a l l e r " o r some o t h e r member o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s s t a f f .

The conclus ion f rom th i s was t h a t t h e work performed by the

a p p e l l a n t was n o t i n t h e n a t u r e o f c o l l e c t i n g o r d e r s o r s o l i c i t i n g

b u s i n e s s o r s e l l i n g . I n t r u t h , h o w e v e r , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e

f i r s t con tac t was by another member o f s t a f f h a s no bea r ing

on the quest ion of whether what was done by t h e a p p e l l a n t f i t t e d

t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . C l e a r l y i n m o s t c a s e s a f t e r t h e i n i t i a t i n g

a c t i o n o f t h e t r a v e l l e r c a l l e r t h e r e a l p r o c e s s of inducing a

s a l e h a d y e t t o be performed. But for the fol low up by

the appe l l an t w i th a l l the advice and information which he gave

to t he cus tomer , w i th a v iew to caus ing her o r him to pu rchase

c a r p e t , It may be t h a t a s a l e would not have eventuated; The work

o f t h e a p p e l l a n t was i n e v i t a b l y t h a t o f c o l l e c t i n g o rde r s ,

s o l i c i t i n g b u s i n e s s o r s e l l i n g . I t i s a l s o c l e a r o f c o u r s e

t h a t i t was	c a r r i e d on	away	from the	employer	's	p	lace	of
bus iness .

Having regard to the above i t i s o u r v i ew tha t t he

work pe r fo rmed by t he appe l l an t f a l l s w i th in t he r e l evan t

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

4 .

Accordingly, questions of law remain t o be decided.

The p r inc ipa l o f such ques t ions conce rned t he e f f ec t o f t he

making of a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t t h e t e r m s o f t h e a w a r d b e a

common rule i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y . F o r

reasons which were val id , counsel f o r the respondent i s unable

a t t h i s s t a g e t o d e a l w i t h t h i s i s s u e s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . I n

the c i rcumstances we publ ish the foregoing conclusion and

adjourn t h e appea l to a day to be f ixed on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

o f e i t h e r p a r t y on n o t i c e t o t he o the r .

I l