Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Castricum Brothers Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 584

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union v Castricum Brothers Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 584 INDUSTRIAL LAW – termination of employment – seasonal shut down of beef operation prior to permanent closure - whether employees whose employment was terminated at time of seasonal shut down were entitled to redundancy payments – interpretation of redundancy clause in certified agreement – employees terminated prior to decision to close beef operation permanently – employees terminated for reasons other than a decision to close beef operation permanently. AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION v CASTRICUM BROTHERS PTY LTD V 501 of 2000 GOLDBERG J 21 MAY 2001 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 501 of 2000

BETWEEN: AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION

Applicant

AND: CASTRICUM BROTHERS PTY LTD

Respondent

JUDGE: GOLDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 21 MAY 2001

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 501 of 2000

BETWEEN: AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION

Applicant

AND: CASTRICUM BROTHERS PTY LTD

Respondent

JUDGE: GOLDBERG J

DATE: 21 MAY 2001

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 The applicant claims that the respondent, which at all times material operated an abattoir in Dandenong, has failed to pay employees, whose employment was terminated on 11 March 1999, redundancy payments to which they were entitled under a certified agreement between the applicant and the respondent. The applicant seeks orders that the respondent pay to the employees the amounts to which they are entitled under the certified agreement and also claims the imposition of penalties, pursuant to s 178(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ("the Act"). The respondent denies that it is obliged to make the redundancy payments claimed by the applicant and contends that upon the proper interpretation of the certified agreement it is not obliged to do so.