Federal Court of Australia
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )
AUS TRA sLAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) A.C.T. No. 2 of 1982 ) A.C.T. No. 3 of 1982 )
INDUSTRIAL DTVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTED BY
A_ SINGLE JUDGE
BETWEEN:
CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH COMMISSICH Appellant (Resperdent)
and
HEDLEY GORDON ROWE and JUDIVI
ADELLA COONEY Respendens & , (Applicanis)
CORAM: Northrop, Deane and Fisher Jd.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 27 UA foo?
We have reached a firm view on the issues involved and consider it desirable that we give our joint cteasone for
judgment immediately.
These two appeals from decisions of Keely 2. have been heare together. The issue invclved in eacn of tirem is wheth=2 a particular student nurse enrolled atcither tie Wo. a) Canbera Hospital or the Woden vailey Hospital was ai
relevant times entitled to be paid the weekly rate prescribed
by the Hospital Employees Etc. (Nursing Staff A.C.T.) Award
1980 ("the Award") for a student nurse. The resolution of
that issue depends upon whether the relevant student nurse was an employee of the appellant, Capital Territory Heaith Commission ("the Commission") which, inter alia, conducts the Royal Canberra Hospital, the Woden Valley Hospital and the Allambee Nursing Home. The student nurse involved in the first appeal, A.C.T. No. 2 of 1982, is Miss Simms who was a student under & two year supernumerary general nursing course. The student nurse involved in the second appeal, A.C.f. No. 3 of 1982, is Miss Pfeiffer, who was a student under a subsequent three year supernumerary general nuraAing
course.
Mr. Justice Keely at the first instance concluded that each of Miss Simms and Miss Pfeiffer was an employee of the Commission. As a consequence, he held that each was entitled to be paid the prescribed rate for a student nucse under the Award. There was a clear failure by the Commission to pay them that prescribed rate. It followed, so his Honour found, that the Commission had, in each matter, been guilty of a breach of the Award. His Honour imposed, pursuant to tne provisions of s.119 of the Conciliation and Arbitration
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