Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Finance Sector Union v Australia and New Zealand
Banking Group Ltd [2000] FCA 1748
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Award interpretation – Termination payments – whether payment on termination for unused long service leave to be calculated at award rate or salary package rate – award breach – set off – circumstances in which set off permissible – remedy - discretion.
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s 178 Poletti v Ecob (1989) 91 ALR 381, followed Logan v Otis Elevator Co Pty Ltd [1999] IRCA 4 (22 June 1999), followed David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353, referred to FINANCE SECTOR UNION OF AUSTRALIA v AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED NORTH J 6 DECEMBER 2000 MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VG 535 OF 1998
BETWEEN: FINANCE SECTOR UNION OF AUSTRALIA
APPLICANT
AND: AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER: 6 DECEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed, in consultation with the Associate to Justice North.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VG 535 OF 1998
BETWEEN: FINANCE SECTOR UNION OF AUSTRALIA
APPLICANT
AND: AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: NORTH J
DATE: 6 DECEMBER 2000
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Before the Court is an application by the Finance Sector Union of Australia (the Union) which is an organisation of employees registered under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (the Act). The application is brought under s 178 of the Act. It seeks the imposition of penalties on the respondent, the Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, for breach of cl 34 of the ANZ Group Award 1991 (the award). 2 The application relates to six bank managers – David Rome, Geoffrey Leslie, Maxwell Davis, David Jeffrey, Rodney Manser and Angela Mitchell – who were all employed by the respondent. The employment of each of the managers was terminated on the ground of redundancy between January 1995 and October 1997. 3 The application raises two questions concerning the adequacy of the payment for unused long service leave received by the managers on termination. 4 The first is a question of construction of the award, and the second is whether the respondent was entitled to set off against the award entitlement for unused long service leave the amount paid under the respondent's Retirement / Severance Allowance Scheme (the Scheme).
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