Ansett and Webb v Mainbrook Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Australian Ice Productions [1995] IRCA 93

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VI 2629 of 1994 VI 2630 of 1994

BETWEEN:

KATHERINE SARAH ANSETT & ANOR First Applicant

AND

KYLIE WEBB & ANOR Second Applicant

AND

MAINBROOK HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE) (Revised from Draft Transcript)

7 March 1995 Judicial Registrar Murphy

Separate proceedings were commenced on behalf of the first applicant, Katherine Sarah Ansett ("Ansett"), and the second applicant, Kylie Webb ("Webb"), ("the Applicants") by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the third applicant, against the respondent. As there were common questions of fact and law in the proceedings, I ordered that they be consolidated. The respondent has not appeared at the hearing. The representative for the applicants tendered to the Court affidavits of service of all the relevant documents on the respondent at its registered office in Herdsman, Western Australia. There are also on the Court file copy letters to the respondent indicating that the matter was to be heard on this day. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to proceed with the hearing of the matter.

The First Applicant

The first applicant, Ansett, gave evidence that she was employed by the respondent, commencing on 14 October 1994, as an assistant choreographer. She was to work as a choreographer on a large scale ice show, which was to tour Australia for a period of at least 60 weeks. A week later, the title of her position was changed to be assistant choreographer/assistant director. It was agreed between herself and Mr Morriss of the respondent that she would be paid at the rate of $404.00 per week and it was further agreed between them that that would increase to $808.00 per week from 20 November 1994. It was also agreed between Mr Morriss and herself that she would be paid an incidentals allowances at the rate specified by the Actors Equity rules for a trip to Sydney and Brisbane recruiting staff for the production. She claimed an amount of $184.80. She was paid wages on two occasions and on a third occasion she was also paid, but this cheque was not met by the bank. Subsequently, a substitute cheque was issued and met by the respondent. The total amount that she was paid while she was employed there was $4,040.00.