Gilmour and Griffiths v Transfield Construction - WA [1998] IRCA 6

Gilmour and Griffiths v Transfield Construction - WA [1998] IRCA 6

The applicants' contracts prescribed normal hours for work by implication of industry practice, previous dealings, and payment formula, so overtime and penalty payments are excluded. The relevant wages for both applicants did not exceed the statutory thresholds, so the Court has jurisdiction to hear their claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Compensation for Alleged Unlawful Termination / Preliminary Hearing on Jurisdictional Point
Outcome
Preliminary issue decided in favour of the applicants; applications are to proceed.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'relevant Wages' 'employment Contracts' 'award Conditions']
['industrial Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'relevant Wages' 'employment Contracts' 'award Conditions']

Case Brief

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Compensation for Alleged Unlawful Termination / Preliminary Hearing on Jurisdictional Point

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether 'relevant wages' exceeded the applicable statutory amount for the purposes of Section 170CD of the Industrial Relations Act" 'Whether applicants were employed under award conditions' "Whether employment contract prescribed 'normal hours' for performance of work" "Whether, and which, allowances formed part of 'relevant wages'"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' contracts prescribed normal hours for work by implication of industry practice, previous dealings, and payment formula, so overtime and penalty payments are excluded. The relevant wages for both applicants did not exceed the statutory thresholds, so the Court has jurisdiction to hear their claims.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issue decided in favour of the applicants; applications are to proceed.

Orders

  • ["It is declared that Edward Mason Griffiths's relevant wages did not exceed the applicable amount under Section 170CD(1)(a) at termination." "It is declared that Gregory Peter Gilmour's relevant wages did not exceed the amount under Section 170CD(1)(b) at termination." 'Applications to be listed for further...