Harbour City Real Estate Pty Ltd t/as Re/Max Harbour City Real Estate (ACN 111 210 023) v Cargill (No 3) [2009] FCA 669

Harbour City Real Estate Pty Ltd t/as Re/Max Harbour City Real Estate (ACN 111 210 023) v Cargill (No 3) [2009] FCA 669

The pre-reform Workplace Relations Act 1996 applied to the dispute and the relevant 'no-disadvantage test' was not satisfied by option 4 alone; option 3 of the undertaking was open and applicable. The reading down provision in clause 4 related only to leave matters and did not exclude option 3. Employer's subjective intent was not relevant. Accordingly, there was no breach of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by the appellants and Ms Cargill's claim should be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['australian Workplace Agreements' 'no Disadvantage Test' 'statutory Interpretation' 'contractual Interpretation' 'employment Entitlements']
['industrial Law' 'contract Law'] ['australian Workplace Agreements' 'no Disadvantage Test' 'statutory Interpretation' 'contractual Interpretation' 'employment Entitlements']

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

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the pre-reform Workplace Relations Act 1996 applied to the dispute' 'Proper construction and application of the undertaking included in the Australian Workplace Agreement' 'Applicability of the no-disadvantage test and which option under the undertaking applied to Ms Cargill' "Whether the employer's intention in signing the undertaking is relevant to construction"]

Ratio Decidendi

The pre-reform Workplace Relations Act 1996 applied to the dispute and the relevant 'no-disadvantage test' was not satisfied by option 4 alone; option 3 of the undertaking was open and applicable. The reading down provision in clause 4 related only to leave matters and did not exclude option 3. Employer's subjective intent was not relevant. Accordingly, there was no breach of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by the appellants and Ms Cargill's claim should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The orders of the learned Industrial Magistrate on 22 May 2008 are set aside.' 'There is a finding that there was no breach of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) by the appellants.' 'The claim brought in the Industrial Magistrates Court of Western Australia is dismissed.' 'Any further...