Federal Court of Australia
4s
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION V No.35 of 1978
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
BETWEEN:
PAUL JOHN BURGESS Informant
and JOHN CONNELL-MOTT, HAY AND ANDERSON PTY.LTD Defendant
ae
AN OM 7 CATCHWORDS
Industrial law - dismissal of an employee : facts and circumstances of being a member of
an organisation; entitled to benefit of award - no ease for defendant to answer - eligibility for membership of an organisation : Rule 6
of Australian Workers Union - meaning of
"all kinds of general labour" - whether employee engagea "in or in connection with ... railway construction work ... land surveying" - whether defendant bound by Australian Workers Union
Construction & Maintenance Award 1975.
"Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, as amended,
ss.5(1),(4); 61.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION V No. 35 of 1978
.e
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
BETWEEN; PAUL JOHN BURGESS Informant
and
JOHN CONNELL-MOTT, HAY AND ANDERSON PTY.LTD Defendant
ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: . Northrop J. DATE OF ORDER: a 23 March, 1979
WHERE MADE: "O MELBOURNE
ORDER: ' Information dismissed.
7s
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA >
" INDUSTRIAL DIVISION V No. 35 of 1978
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
BETWEEN:
PAUL JOHN BURGESS , . Informant
. and
JOHN CONNELL-MOTT, HAY AND ANDERSON PTY.LTD.Defendant
NORTHROP J. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 23 March, 1979,
On 28 November 1977 Paul John Burgess,
the informant, entered into a contract of employment with
John Connell-Mott, Hay and Anderson Pty. Ltd., the defendant,
a company incorporated in the State of Victoria. The terms of the contract of employment were contained ina letter dated 28 November 1977 from the defendant to the informant. On 16 October 1978, in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment, the defendant dismissed the informant from its employment. On 23 November 1978 the informant instituted these proceedings under s.5 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, as amended, the Act. The hearing of the information commenced on 5 February 1979 and at the close of the informant's case, Counsel for the defendant submitted that there was no case for the defendant to answer and that the information should be dismissed. After hearing submissions from Counsel for the defendant and Counsel for the informant the Court reserved its decision.
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