Piepkorn v Gerard Industries Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 150

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Piepkorn v Gerard Industries Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 150

HENRIETTE PIEPKORN v GERARD INDUSTRIES PTY LTD S 97 OF 1999

MANSFIELD J 27 JANUARY 2000 ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 97 OF 1999

BETWEEN: HENRIETTE PIEPKORN

Applicant

AND: GERARD INDUSTRIES PTY LTD

Respondent

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE: 27 JANUARY 2000

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 3 December 1999 the applicant brought proceedings ostensibly under s 298K(d) and (e) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ("the Act"). That application was amended on 22 December 1999 to refer separately to ss 298L and 298M of the Act. In effect, whatever the substantive provisions nominally relied upon, this is an application under s 298T of the Act for orders under s 298U of the Act for contraventions of some provisions of Div 3 of Pt 10A of the Act, in particular ss 298K, 298L or 298M. 2 As counsel for the respondent has identified, the amended application really contains three claims. The background to the application, as the evidence shows, is that the respondent opened a plant, as one of its plants, in Strathalbyn, South Australia, in about 1994. At about that time the applicant applied for employment at the Strathalbyn plant of the respondent, but it was refused. The first letter indicating that her application for employment was unsuccessful was dated 5 April 1995. 3 Since that time, on her evidence, she has applied for employment with the respondent at its Strathalbyn plant on more or less a six monthly basis, but none of her applications have been successful. In each case she has received a letter from the manager of the Strathalbyn plant, Mr Spencer, indicating that her application was unsuccessful, but that it would be held on file for a period of some months and would be reconsidered should a suitable position become available. 4 The applicant was previously employed between 1972 and 1975 in the vehicle industry as an assembler but she also performed other tasks. She was also employed in the plastics industry as an assembler, but again performing a range of tasks, between 1978 and 1984. In each of those employments, she was a member of the industrial association which covered that industry. But in neither case was she an officer or a shop steward of the industrial association concerned. She said, and I accept, that she was an interested and active member of the industrial association in each instance. 5 The present application makes the following claims: