Davies Bros. Ltd v Printing & Kindred Industries Union [1987] FCA 819

JUDGMENT No. Schedoinenal kaos

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

)

)

) . .

) No. I 4 of 1984 INDUSTRIAL DIVISION ) ) )

ON APPEAT, FROM MR. JUSTICE GRAY

DAVIES BROS. LIMITED

Appellant

PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION

First Respondent

CHRISTOPHER HARVEY

Second Respondent

CORAM: Northrop, Keely, Einfeld JJ

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DATE: 19 June 1987 28 JAN 2003 LIBRARY EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT EINFELD J: The application from which this appeal emerges relates

primarily to the interpretation of Schedule BAA ("the Schedule"), known as the Saturday Evening Mercury Agreement to the Newspaper Printing Agreement 1979 ("NPA Agreement") certified by the Australian

Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 1 December 1981.

The short point at issue is whether the Schedule applies to casual publishing employees performing work in the appellant's newspaper, the Saturday Evening Mercury, published. in Hobart. The Schedule, which is incorporated in the NPA Agreement by clause 43, is set out in full in

the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Gray at first instance.

On its face, it is clear that the Schedule applies to all employees employed in publishing the Saturday Evening Mercury. The appellant argues however that the context of the NPA Agreement requires that the

Schedule should be read down to exclude casual employees.

Clause 23(a) of the NPA Agreement delineates the employees who may be

employed by the respondent:

"No employee shall be employed other than as a weekly time-work employee or a weekly piece-work employee or a casual time-work employee or a casual piece-work employee." Clause 26 defines a casual employee as being someone other than a weekly employee and provides for his or her rates of pay. While distinguishing different rates of pay for casual publishing and non-publishing employees and for those of the first variety working on day or night