FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Williams v MacMahon Mining Services Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1321
Citation: Williams v MacMahon Mining Services Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1321 Appeal from: Williams v MacMahon Mining Services Pty Ltd [2009] FMCA 511
Williams v MacMahon Mining Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FMCA 763
Williams v MacMahon Mining Services Pty Ltd (No 3) [2010] FMCA 49Parties: ADRIAN CLIFFORD WILLIAMS v MACMAHON MINING SERVICES PTY LTD; MACMAHON MINING SERVICES PTY LTD; ADRIAN CLIFFORD WILLIAMS File number: WAD 98 of 2009 Judge: BARKER J Date of judgment: 30 November 2010 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – meaning of ‘casual employee’– whether Federal Magistrate erred in finding employee was not a casual employee for the purposes of s 227 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
INDUSTRIAL LAW – whether Federal Magistrate erred in finding that s 173 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) rendered a provision in a contract of employment providing for payment of a loading in lieu of paid lead entitlements to no effect
INDUSTRIAL LAW – whether Federal Magistrate erred in the exercise of discretion in assessing penalty for contraventions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
Legislation: Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 173, s 227, s 232, s 235(2) Cases cited: Doyle v Sydney Steel Co Ltd [1936] HCA 66; (1936) 56 CLR 545
Hamzy v Tricon International Restaurants and Another [2001] FCA 1589; (2001) 115 FCR 78
James Turner Roofing Pty Ltd v Peters [2003] WASCA 28; (2003) 132 IR 122
Melrose Farm Pty Ltd t/as Milesaway Tours v Milward [2008] WASCA 175; (2008) 175 IR 455
Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd t/as Tricord Personnel v The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union of Workers [2004] WASCA 312; (2004) 141 IR 31
Reed v Blue Line Cruises Ltd (1996) 73 IR 420
Thompson v Big Berty Ltd t/as Charles Hotel [2007] FCA 1978; (2007) 168 IR 309Date of hearing: 11 June 2010 Place: Perth Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 100 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr HJ Dixon SC and Mr THF Caspersz Solicitor for the Appellant: Jackson McDonald Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Crawshaw SC and Mr M Gibian Solicitor for the Respondent: DH Schapper Counsel for the Cross-Appellant: Mr S Crawshaw SC and Mr M Gibian Solicitor for the Cross-Appellant: DH Schapper Counsel for the Cross-Respondent: Mr HJ Dixon SC and Mr THF Caspersz Solicitor for the Cross-Respondent: Jackson McDonald
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION
WAD 98 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: ADRIAN CLIFFORD WILLIAMS
AppellantMACMAHON MINING SERVICES PTY LTD
Cross-AppellantAND: MACMAHON MINING SERVICES PTY LTD
RespondentADRIAN CLIFFORD WILLIAMS
Cross-Respondent
JUDGE:
BARKER J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 NOVEMBER 2010
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The consolidated appeals from Williams v MacMahon Mining Services Pty Ltd [2009] FMCA 511, Williams v MacMahon Mining Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009]…
Continue reading Williams v MacMahon Mining Services Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Williams v MacMahon Mining Services Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1321
- Case
- [2010] FCA 1321
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Williams v MacMahon Mining Services Pty Ltd, the Federal Court was tasked with addressing appeals from Mr Williams concerning the determinations made by a Federal Magistrate. The central issues in the case involved whether the Federal Magistrate was correct in finding that MacMahon was entitled to set-off payments made in lieu of annual leave against Mr Williams' entitlement to annual leave payments upon termination of employment. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Federal Magistrate erred in assessing penalty, particularly by taking into account extraneous matters or mistaking facts in finding aggravating circumstances.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Magistrate erred in interpreting section 173 of the Workplace Relations Act, which governs the conditions under which casual employees can be compensated for annual leave. Specifically, the court had to determine if this section rendered ineffective any contractual provision expressly providing for payment of a loading in lieu of paid leave entitlements. Another issue was whether the Federal Magistrate exercised his discretion correctly in assessing penalties, ensuring that extraneous or irrelevant matters were not considered, and facts were accurately identified as aggravating circumstances.
In addressing these issues, the court found that the Federal Magistrate did not err in his interpretation of section 173 of the Workplace Relations Act, affirming that the provision in Mr Williams' contract of employment that provided for payment of a loading in lieu of paid leave entitlements was indeed rendered ineffective. The court also determined that the Federal Magistrate did not exercise his discretion incorrectly in assessing penalties, as there was no evidence of extraneous or irrelevant matters being considered, nor was there a mistake in identifying the facts as aggravating circumstances. Consequently, the appeals raised by Mr Williams were dismissed.
The court's final orders, which will be communicated by counsel, are expected to affirm the dismissal of the appeals, thereby upholding the Federal Magistrate's determinations.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Magistrate erred in interpreting section 173 of the Workplace Relations Act, which governs the conditions under which casual employees can be compensated for annual leave. Specifically, the court had to determine if this section rendered ineffective any contractual provision expressly providing for payment of a loading in lieu of paid leave entitlements. Another issue was whether the Federal Magistrate exercised his discretion correctly in assessing penalties, ensuring that extraneous or irrelevant matters were not considered, and facts were accurately identified as aggravating circumstances.
In addressing these issues, the court found that the Federal Magistrate did not err in his interpretation of section 173 of the Workplace Relations Act, affirming that the provision in Mr Williams' contract of employment that provided for payment of a loading in lieu of paid leave entitlements was indeed rendered ineffective. The court also determined that the Federal Magistrate did not exercise his discretion incorrectly in assessing penalties, as there was no evidence of extraneous or irrelevant matters being considered, nor was there a mistake in identifying the facts as aggravating circumstances. Consequently, the appeals raised by Mr Williams were dismissed.
The court's final orders, which will be communicated by counsel, are expected to affirm the dismissal of the appeals, thereby upholding the Federal Magistrate's determinations.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
The appeal by Mr Williams raising the issue whether the Federal Magistrate erred in finding that MacMahon was entitled to set-off any sum of money appropriated from the casual loading paid to Mr Williams in lieu of annual leave against any entitlement Mr Williams had to annual leave payments for accrued annual leave on termination of employment in accordance with s 232 and s 235(2) of the WR Act, fell away after the decision was made in Williams No 2.The issue arising in Williams No 2 is:·whether the Federal Magistrate erred in finding that s 173 of the WR Act has the effect of making the provision in Mr Williams’ contract of employment expressly providing for payment of a loading in lieu of paid leave entitlements, to be of no effect.The issue arising in Williams No 3 is:·whether the Federal Magistrate erred in the exercise of his discretion in assessing penalty by taking into account extraneous or irrelevant matters, or mistaking facts in finding, as aggravating circumstances.FACTS The parties do not dispute the Federal Magistrate’s summary of the relevant factual background outlined at [4] – [13] of Williams No 1. For context, I will repeat it largely verbatim here. Mr Williams was employed as a miner by MacMahon from 9 November 2006 until 16 December 2007 at the Argyle Diamond mine site (Argyle) in the north-west of Western Australia under a letter of employment dated 16 November 2006. The letter of employment was signed by Mr Williams on 19 December 2006 (the Contract). MacMahon paid Mr Williams a flat hourly rate of $40.00 per hour under the Contract, which provided that:The rate of pay is all inclusive and takes into account all responsibilities, disabilities, allowances … and includes payment for all hours necessary to undertake your rostered duties, and as a casual employee, a loading in lieu of paid leave entitlements. The rate includes compensation for any necessary shift, public holiday and weekend work. Mr Williams’ hours of work were set out in the Contract which included a requirement to work either a day or a night shift. Mr Williams was required to work 12 hour shifts on a two weeks on/one week off roster. The evidence before the Federal Magistrate was that Mr Williams worked seven consecutive day shifts, then seven consecutive night shifts, and then had seven days off for the entire period of his employment, save for the first three months where he worked only day shifts. Mr Williams worked in one of three crews at Argyle. He was on “C” crew. For most of the time that he was employed he worked on mobile plant equipment. For the 2008 calendar year Mr Williams was provided with a “CRE 2008 C Crew Roster” which set out his crew’s night and day shifts and flight times for the charter flights to and from Argyle for that 12 month period. Mr Williams was flown to Argyle by charter flight from Perth and accommodated at Argyle in accommodation provided by MacMahon. On 16 December 2007, MacMahon gave Mr Williams notice of termination of his employment under the Contract, a term of which relevantly provided:Employment may be terminated by the provision of notice, being one hour in the case of a casual employee …Mr Williams did not receive any payment for annual leave on termination of his employment.THE ‘CASUAL EMPLOYEE’ QUESTION
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
The appeal therefore fails on this ground.CONCLUSION AND ORDERS For the reasons above, I would dismiss the appeals. I will hear from counsel as to the final orders.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.