Industrial Court of New South Wales CITATION: Tanya Mazza, Peter Shalala, Anthony La Grazia & Gregory Nettle v Syddeck Pty Ltd trading as Royale Limousines and anor. [2006] NSWIRComm 80 APPLICANTS: Tanya Mazza Peter Shalala Anthony La Grazia Gregory Nettle PARTIES: RESPONDENTS: Syddeck Pty Ltd t/as Royale Limousines and Peter John Bartolotta FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 3328, 4273, 4792 & 5404 of 2003 CORAM: Haylen J CASES CITED: Mazza & ors v Syddeck Pty Ltd t/as Royale Limousines and anor [2006] NSWIRComm 44 HEARING DATES: 09/03/2006 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/09/2006 APPLICANTS: Mr A Metcalfe of counsel SOLICITORS: LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Employment Lawyers RESPONDENTS: Mr J Bartolotta on behalf of both respondents JUDGMENT: INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CORAM: HAYLEN J 9 March 2006 Matter No IRC 3328 of 2003 Tanya Mazza v Syddeck Pty Ltd t/as Royale Limousines and anor. Application under s 106 of Industrial Relations Act 1996 Matter No IRC 4273 of 2003 Peter Shalala v Syddeck Pty Ltd t/as Royale Limousines and anor. Application under s 106 of Industrial Relations Act 1996 Matter No IRC 4729 of 2003 Anthony La Grazia v v Syddeck Pty Ltd t/as Royale Limousines and anor. Application under s 106 of Industrial Relations Act 1996 Matter No IRC 5404 of 2003 Gregory Nettle v Syddeck Pty Ltd t/as Royale Limousines and anor. Application under s 106 of Industrial Relations Act 1996 JUDGMENT [2006] NSWIRComm 80 ORDERS 1 On 17 February 2006, the Court delivered reasons for finding that each of the four applicants had established a case for making orders under s 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (see Mazza & ors v Syddeck Pty Ltd t/as Royale Limousines and anor [2006] NSWIRComm 44). The Court now makes the following final orders in each matter: 2 Tanya Mazza (1) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared unfair from the time it was entered into and during the course of the arrangement insofar as in its operation it avoided the provisions of the Transport Industry (State) Award. (2) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared unfair as a result of the respondents' conduct in terminating the applicant's contract with the first respondent without notice or compensation in lieu of notice. (3) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared unfair from the time it was entered into because it did not provide for the payment of superannuation benefits. (4) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared void ab initio save and except for payments already received by the applicant. (5) The first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay the applicant the amount of $14,997.82 in connection with the arrangement that has been declared void. (6) The first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay into the applicant's ING Superannuation Fund Account numbered 1726600817-0 the amount of $1,792.47 in connection with the arrangement that has been declared void. (7) The first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay the applicant's reasonable costs of the Proceedings. 3 Peter Shalala (1) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared unfair from the time it was entered into and during the course of the arrangement insofar as in its operation it avoided the provisions of the Transport Industry (State) Award. (2) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared unfair from the time it was entered into insofar as it did not provide for the payment of superannuation benefits. (3) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared void ab initio save and except for payments already received by the applicant. (4) The first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay the applicant the amount of $24,190.59 in connection with the contract that has been declared void. (5) The first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay the applicant's reasonable costs of the proceedings. 4 Anthony La Grazia (1) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared unfair from the time it was entered into and during the course of the arrangement insofar as in its operation it avoided the provisions of the Transport Industry (State) Award and the Clerical & Administrative Employees Hire Cars & Taxis (State) Award. (2) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared unfair as a result of the respondents' conduct in terminating the applicant's contract with the first respondent without notice or compensation in lieu of notice. (3) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared unfair from the time it was entered into insofar as it did not provide for the payment of superannuation benefits. (4) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared void ab initio save and except for payments already received by the applicant. (5) The first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay the applicant the amount of $44,722.00 in connection with the arrangement that has been declared void. (6) The first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay into the applicant's MTAA Superannuation Fund Account numbered 6672563 the amount of $5,712.65 in connection with the arrangement that has been declared void. (7) The first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay the applicant's reasonable costs of the proceedings. 5 Gregory Nettle (1) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared unfair from the time it was entered into and during the course of the arrangement insofar as in its operation it avoided the provisions of the Transport Industry (State) Award. (2) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared unfair from the time it was entered into insofar as it did not provide for the payment of superannuation benefits. (3) The arrangement between the applicant and the respondents is declared void ab initio save and except for payments already received by the applicant. (4) The first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay the applicant the amount of $131,467.19 in connection with the arrangement that has been declared void. (5) The first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay into the applicant's HostPlus Superannuation Fund Account numbered 100590728 the amount of $11,656.69 in connection with the arrangement that has been declared void. (6) The first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay the applicant's reasonable costs of the proceedings. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.