Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
Doherty & Anor v 54 Cuba Street (2007) Ltd (formerly 54 Cuba Street Ltd) Ltd & Anor
18 May 2007, P R Stapp, WA 78/07, (5 pages)
COMPLIANCE ORDER - Identity of employer - Applicants asked Authority to make indicative findings about role of second respondent - Information produced by applicants did not rule out joint employment - Leave granted for applicants to pursue definitive rulings on role and liability of second respondent - Applicants sought payment of outstanding redundancy pay, bonuses and expenses - First respondent accepted liability for redundancy pay - Calculation of bonus owing to first applicant reserved as more detail required - Directors of first respondent requested to provide necessary information - First applicant's evidence as to vehicle allowance accepted - Second applicant owed outstanding expenses - First respondent claimed unable to pay and applicant’s preferential creditors - Compliance ordered, with date able to be varied on application - RECOVERY OF MONIES - Counterclaim - Respondents sought to recover cash alleged second applicant obtained from company credit card without authority - Second applicant submitted obtained cash to reduce exposure from not being paid expenses - Second applicant consented to offset sum from total claim - Authority reached no conclusion on his behaviour
Result: Compliance ordered ; Orders accordingly ; Costs in favour of applicants ($3,000)
Eastern Bay Independent Industrial Workers Union v Pedersen Industries Ltd
4 Jul 2007, R A Monaghan, AA 202/07, (5 pages)
DISPUTE – Whether entitlement to additional week’s leave crystallised on dates identified in parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”), or began to accrue from those dates – Authority heard evidence from negotiators of CEA – Issue not expressly discussed during negotiations – First part of clause made it clear entitlement became due on completion of complete year’s work – However, “note” attached to clause not well-worded – On its face, “note” no more than statement of when clause came into effect and did not address commencement date of qualifying period – Additional week’s leave available to employees who worked complete year on qualifying shift – Comments attributed to respondent’s director during negotiations appeared to amount to instruction to give union what it wanted on issue – Words and circumstances of CEA supported applicant’s interpretation – COMPLIANCE ORDER - Applicant had sought compliance with CEA – Compliance order discretionary – Parties genuine dispute now resolve – No reason to assume respondent would fail to act – Compliance order not necessary – Application adjourned
Result: Question answered in favour of applicant ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved
Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section
