Lennie v Hawkes [1996] IRCA 472

Lennie v Hawkes [1996] IRCA 472

The applicants were entitled to recover the deducted wages because the respondents did not establish a valid lockout for the periods worked: the notices and conduct did not amount to a clear and unambiguous prevention of work for an ascertainable period. In any event, the lockout action was not protected action because the equivocal notices did not satisfy s170PH(2)(b), and s170PG(5) permits refusal of remuneration only for a lockout that has protected action status. Mr Laird was also entitled to be paid for the period after he returned from the stop work meeting on 10 May 1996 because he was ready, willing and able to work and the award did not permit the deduction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 1996
Procedural Posture
Applications Under S179 Industrial Relations Act 1988 for Recovery of Monies Alleged to Be Owed Under the Northern Territory Teaching Service Award 1981 / Reasons for Judgment and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Applications allowed to the extent that the respondents were ordered to pay the deducted wage amounts; proceedings otherwise adjourned for submissions on interest.
Legal Topics
['recovery of Wages' 'lockout' 'protected Action' 'bargaining Period' 'notice of Intended Lockout' 'deductions From Wages']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['recovery of Wages' 'lockout' 'protected Action' 'bargaining Period' 'notice of Intended Lockout' 'deductions From Wages']

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

Applications Under S179 Industrial Relations Act 1988 for Recovery of Monies Alleged to Be Owed Under the Northern Territory Teaching Service Award 1981 / Reasons for Judgment and Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants had been validly locked out by the respondents at times when deductions were made from their wages.' 'Whether service of the lockout notices was sufficient to establish a lockout for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.' 'Whether s170PG(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 entitled the employer to refuse remuneration where the lockout was not protected action.' "Whether the respondents complied with the 72 hours' notice requirements in s170PH(2)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988." 'Whether Mr Laird was entitled to remuneration for the period on 10 May 1996 after he returned from the stop work meeting and presented himself for work but was directed not to work.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were entitled to recover the deducted wages because the respondents did not establish a valid lockout for the periods worked: the notices and conduct did not amount to a clear and unambiguous prevention of work for an ascertainable period. In any event, the lockout action was not protected action because the equivocal notices did not satisfy s170PH(2)(b), and s170PG(5) permits refusal of remuneration only for a lockout that has protected action status. Mr Laird was also entitled to be paid for the period after he returned from the stop work meeting on 10 May 1996 because he was ready, willing and able to work and the award did not permit the deduction.

Court Disposition

Applications allowed to the extent that the respondents were ordered to pay the deducted wage amounts; proceedings otherwise adjourned for submissions on interest.

Orders

  • ['In No. DI 1044 of 1996, the respondent shall pay the applicant the sum of $248 on or before 25 October 1996.' 'In No. DI 1044 of 1996, the proceeding otherwise be adjourned until 10.15 am on 28 October 1996 in Melbourne for the hearing of submissions on the question of interest.' 'In No. DI 1045 of 1996, the...