Coochey v Commonwealth of Australia [2005] FCA 1165

Coochey v Commonwealth of Australia [2005] FCA 1165

The respondent breached the certified agreement because its administrative systems failed to ensure that the applicant, who was potentially excess or excess, was considered in isolation for Position No. 12935 as required by cl 21.5.1, and because it failed to refer him to APSLMAP with all reasonable expedition after his potentially excess status was established. The Commonwealth was a body corporate for the purpose of the penalty provisions, and the seriousness of the first breach justified a substantial penalty, while the APSLMAP breach warranted only a nominal penalty.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Seeking the Imposition of Penalties for Alleged Breaches of a Certified Agreement Registered Under S 170 LJ of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth). / Reasons for Judgment and Orders on Penalties After Hearing.
Outcome
The application succeeded to the extent that two breaches of the certified agreement were established and penalties were imposed on the respondent, payable to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['certified Agreements' 'redeployment and Retrenchment' 'excess and Potentially Excess Employees' 'civil Penalties' 'statutory Interpretation' 'commonwealth as Body Corporate']
['industrial Law' 'workplace Relations' 'public Sector Employment'] ['certified Agreements' 'redeployment and Retrenchment' 'excess and Potentially Excess Employees' 'civil Penalties' 'statutory Interpretation' 'commonwealth as Body Corporate']

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 Seeking the Imposition of Penalties for Alleged Breaches of a Certified Agreement Registered Under S 170 LJ of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth). / Reasons for Judgment and Orders on Penalties After Hearing.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent breached the certified agreement by failing to consider the applicant in isolation from, and not in competition with, other applicants for Position No. 12935.' 'Whether the respondent breached the certified agreement by failing to refer the applicant to APSLMAP as soon as reasonably possible after he was potentially excess.' 'Whether the Commonwealth was a body corporate for the purpose of the penalty provisions in s 178 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).' 'What penalties should be imposed for the established breaches.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent breached the certified agreement because its administrative systems failed to ensure that the applicant, who was potentially excess or excess, was considered in isolation for Position No. 12935 as required by cl 21.5.1, and because it failed to refer him to APSLMAP with all reasonable expedition after his potentially excess status was established. The Commonwealth was a body corporate for the purpose of the penalty provisions, and the seriousness of the first breach justified a substantial penalty, while the APSLMAP breach warranted only a nominal penalty.

Court Disposition

The application succeeded to the extent that two breaches of the certified agreement were established and penalties were imposed on the respondent, payable to the applicant.

Orders

  • ['A penalty of $8,000 be imposed on the respondent in respect of the first breach.' 'A penalty of $100 be imposed on the respondent in respect of the second breach.' 'In each case the penalties are to be paid to the applicant within twenty-one days.']