Metro Meat Ltd v A.M.I.E.U. [1988] FCA 376

JUDGMENT No. ZQhr. Tnnld Banned

CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL LAW - interpretation of award - rates of pay ~

repugnancy between general provision and that dealing with a

particular subject - construction of penal provision

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 s. 110

Refrigeration Express Lines (A/asia) Pty. Ltd. v Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation & Ors. (No. 2) (1980) 44 FLR Scott v Cawsey (1907) 5 CLR 132

METRO MEAT LTD. v AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION

NO. SA 3 OF 1987 MELBOURNE

KEELY J.

21 JULY, 1988

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION NOT REQUIRED "

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY )} No. SA 3 of 1987 ) INDUSTRIAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN

METRO MEAT LTD.

Applicant

AND

AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES UNION

Respondent

21 JULY, 1988 KEELY J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by Metro Meat Ltd. ("the applicant") under s. 110 of the Concilzation and Arbitration Act 1904 ("the Act") for an interpretation of The South Australian Meatworks Industrial Agreement-Award, 1982 ("the Award"). Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of the application relate to the questions of payment for public holidays, annual leave and sick leave respectively. Paragraphs 2, 4 and 6, which relate to orders sought in the alternative to those sought in

paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 respectively, may be put to one side.

Mr. Bleby, of Queens Counsel, and Miss A. Harrison, of counsel, appeared for the applicant, which 1s incorporated in the State of South Austral1a. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union ("the Union") was represented by Mr. F. L. Wright, of counsel. The applicant is a person bound by the Award. Mr. Teasdale, its State Personnel Manager, stated that it operates, by means of 3 "divisions", at the 3

different locations referred to in the Award.

In an affidavit Mr. Teasdale stated that the application concerned mutton slaughtermen employed as pieceworkers at the Murray Bridge Division where the