Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
King v Melbourne Vicentre Swimming Club Inc [2021] FCAFC 123 Appeal from: King v Melbourne Vicentre Swimming Club Inc [2020] FCA 1173
File number: VID 589 of 2020
Judgment of: COLLIER, KATZMANN AND JACKSON JJ
Date of judgment: 15 July 2021
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW - appeal from decision on preliminary issue - primary judge found that swim coach appellant was not covered by Fitness Industry Award 2010 - principles of construction of industrial awards - appellant covered by award at Level 4 on proper construction - appeal allowed in respect of preliminary decision - balance of issues in proceeding remitted to primary judge for trial
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 46, 47, 48, 570 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) Fitness Industry Award 2010 Health and Fitness Centres, Swim Schools and Indoors Sports Award - Queensland - 2005
Cases cited: Amcor Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2005] HCA 10; (2005) 222 CLR 241 Choppair Helicopters Pty Ltd v Bobridge [2018] FCA 325 City of Wanneroo v Holmes (1989) 30 IR 362 Kucks v CSR Ltd (1996) 66 IR 182 Short v FW Hercus Pty Ltd (1993) 40 FCR 511 WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131; (2018) 264 FCR 536
Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 91
Date of hearing: 18 May 2021
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate