Stanley v Father Michael Court - [2014] FCCA 156

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STANLEY v FATHER MICHAEL COURT

[2014] FCCA 156

Catchwords:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Enterprise agreement – interpretation of Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney Aged Care and NSWNA/ANF Enterprise Agreement 2011 to 2013 – where employer sought to introduce new management plan – where employees’ roles and titles would change under the new management system – where employees given draft documents about the roles and offers of employment – where individual meetings were proposed to discuss changes – where employees’ sought to have a group meeting but this was refused – where employee refused to attend separate meeting individually – where employees indicated that they would seek union’s advice - where employee’s employment terminated on day of refusal to attend individual meeting – where enterprise agreement included dispute resolution and consultation and introduction of change clauses – whether changes to management structure “major change” to organisation and structure – whether clauses of enterprise agreement engaged by the proposed changes to management structure – whether new agreement contained termination provisions less advantages than existing enterprise agreement – whether there was no obligation to hold group meetings – whether it was unreasonable to seek individual meetings – whether nurses entitled to request representative to attend meetings – whether employees evinced intention to be represented at meetings –whether employee’s employment terminated for exercise of workplace right in contravention of s.340(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether a dispute arose for the purposes of the enterprise agreement – whether dispute resolution procedures need be invoked by employee – whether employer prevented employee from exercising a workplace right to consultation and dispute resolution in contravention of s.340(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether employer applied coercion and undue influence – whether employer knowingly or recklessly made a false or misleading misrepresentation about a workplace right.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009, ss.340(1)(b), 341(1)(b), 342(1), 343, 360, 361, 545(2)(b), 570

City of Wanneroo v Holmes (1989) 30 IR 362
Short v FW Hercus Pty Ltd (1993) 40 FCR 511
Kucks v CSR Limited (1996) 66 IR 182

Amcor Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2005) 222 CLR 241
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay [2012] 290 ALR 647
Fair Work Ombudsman v Toyota Material Handling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2013] FCCA 1881
Fair Work Ombudsman v National Jet Systems Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 243
R v Phillips [1971] ALR 740
Banditt v R (2005) 224 CLR 262
Woods v Multi-Sports Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 9
ALAEA v International Aviation Service Assistance Pty Ltd [2011] 193 FCR 526
Transport Workers Union of Australia (NSW) v No Fuss Liquid Waste Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 892

Applicant:

JENNIFER STANLEY

Respondent:

FATHER MICHAEL COURT

File Number:

SYG 445 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Raphael

Hearing dates:

11, 12 December 2013

Date of Last Submission:

12 December 2013

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

14 February 2014

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

David Mendelssohn

Counsel for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stanley v Father Michael Court 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] FCCA 156
Decision Date: 14 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stanley, an employee of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney Aged Care, brought proceedings against her employer concerning the interpretation and application of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney Aged Care and NSWNA/ANF Enterprise Agreement 2011 to 2013. The dispute arose when the employer proposed to introduce a new management plan that would alter employees' roles and titles. Employees were provided with draft documents and offered individual meetings to discuss the changes, but their request for a group meeting was refused. Stanley's employment was terminated on the day she refused to attend an individual meeting.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed changes to the management structure constituted a "major change" under the enterprise agreement, thereby engaging its consultation and dispute resolution clauses. Further issues included whether the employer's actions contravened section 340(1)(a) and (b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by terminating Stanley's employment for exercising a workplace right or by preventing her from exercising a workplace right to consultation and dispute resolution. The court also considered whether the employer engaged in coercion, undue influence, or made false or misleading representations about a workplace right, and whether a dispute had arisen for the purposes of the enterprise agreement.

Judge Raphael found that the proposed changes to the management structure did not constitute a "major change" as defined by the enterprise agreement, and therefore the extensive consultation and dispute resolution procedures were not triggered. The court determined that the employer was not obligated to hold group meetings and that requiring individual meetings was reasonable in the circumstances. It was also held that the employees had not clearly evinced an intention to be represented at the meetings, and thus the employer was not obliged to permit a representative to attend. Consequently, the termination of Stanley's employment was not found to be in contravention of section 340(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), nor was it found that the employer had prevented Stanley from exercising a workplace right in contravention of section 340(1)(b). The court also found no evidence of coercion, undue influence, or misleading representations.

Orders