Lawrence, Q.D. v. Clutha Development Proprietary Ltd [1985] FCA 190

Industrial law - proceeding for

whether emplovee who

\O

CATCHAORDS

agreed to

payment. due under awara

"voluntary retrenchment"

retrenchea QUENPIN DERRICK LAWKENCE wv CLUE DEVELOPMEY YS PROPRIETARY LIMITLoU

Conciliation and Arbitatton Act

CURAM : KEELY J.

LATE 2: 10 MAY, 1585

mm H hed cs aa

MELBOURNE

i904, s. Loy

We

rc

N THO FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Na V 27 of 1984

< laa Ca Gel [e) ad HH He i] fet]tl at H ie) Lt at faa] Gd iS EQ | eu ae

INDISTRIAL DIVISTON

BETWEEN

JUENI IN DERPICK LAWRENCE,

'Applicant'

AN TI

CLUTHA DEVELOPMENT

-

rT ES uw = fn yyoy

OR

REASONS FCR CJUCGHMINT

The applicant's counsel, Mr. Hecrey, has urced upon

the Court

m1

very consideration thas cculd be rut in support cf the applicant s claim. However, the ciazim musi fail for reasons which will be apparent fron the difficulties which have been raised with Mr. Heerey during his final address this morning ance this afternoon. Havang regard '<o the

lengthy discussion ci those ditticulties that hav taken

place, the reasons for dism2zssing the claim neen on:v he stated fairly briefly.

The applicant claims that he is entitled to $5,616-00 as "retrenchment pay" from the respondent under

clause 28(1) of the Coal Mining Industry (Mechanics) Award, 1982, New South Wales, as amended (the award). In the

alternative it 1s claimed that that amount is due undcr an

agreement between the applicant anc the respondent, made in December 1982, that his employment would he terminated and that, in the words of paragraph 9 of the statement of claim, "the respondent would pay to the applicant the full retrenchment entitlement prescribed by the award witnout regard to whether the termination of his employment witn the respondent was voluntary or otherwise", It was said that

that entitlement was three week's ordinary pav fer each

completed year oz employment with tne respondent.