Amcor Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2005] HCA 10

Amcor Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2005] HCA 10

The fact that employees' contracts with Amcor were terminated and immediately reconstituted with another company (Paper Australia) which continued the same business, with employees performing the same work under the same conditions, did not render their positions redundant under the agreement. Thus, the triggering...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Amcor Limited; Appellant: Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations; Respondent: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Respondent: Mr Anderson (and others)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Redundancy Entitlements, Termination of Employment, Certified Agreements, Transmission of Business, Statutory Interpretation
Industrial Law Redundancy Entitlements Termination of Employment Certified Agreements Transmission of Business Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amcor Limited

Appellant

Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations

Appellant

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Respondent

Mr Anderson (and others)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employees whose employment was terminated by Amcor, but immediately re-employed on same terms by another company after a corporate restructuring, were entitled to redundancy payments under the industrial agreement.
  2. 2 Whether a 'position' becomes redundant when, following a demerger and change of employer identity, the employees’ duties continue in the same form with a new employer.
  3. 3 How the expressions 'redundant', 'retrench' and 'position in a business' in the agreement are to be construed in this context.

Ratio Decidendi

The fact that employees' contracts with Amcor were terminated and immediately reconstituted with another company (Paper Australia) which continued the same business, with employees performing the same work under the same conditions, did not render their positions redundant under the agreement. Thus, the triggering event for redundancy payments did not occur, and the appeals by Amcor and the Minister must be allowed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 28 March 2003 is set aside.
  • In its place, order that the appeal to that Court is allowed.