Gillies and Ors v Health Administration Corporation and Anor [2003] NSWIRComm 243

Gillies and Ors v Health Administration Corporation and Anor [2003] NSWIRComm 243

The court found that unilateral alteration of the applicants' contracts, specifically concerning increased deductions for private motor vehicle use imposed by the 1998 policy, was unfair. The 1990 policy, forming part of the contract either expressly or by conduct, did not permit such fundamental changes without consent or adequate notice. The increased contributions and policy changes effected by the respondents were not justified, imposed unfair financial burdens on the applicants, and were not contractually or statutorily authorised. Policies requiring payment for parking when vehicles were brought to work at the respondent's request added to the unfairness. The contracts must be...

Parties
Applicant: Kevin Gillies; Applicant: Kenneth Darvall Crocker; First Applicant: Gregory John Driver; Second Applicant: Keith Hornshaw; Applicant: Christopher Bentley; First Respondent: Health Administration Corporation; Second Respondent: Western Sydney Area Health Service; Second Respondent: Northern Sydney Area Health Service; Second Respondent: South Western Sydney Area Health Service; Second Respondent: Wentworth Area Health Service
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Applicants succeed. Contracts found to be unfair. Relief granted as specified.
Legal Topics
Unfair Contracts, Variation of Employment Contracts, Statutory Employment Rights, Private Use of Motor Vehicles
Employment Law Industrial Relations Unfair Contracts Variation of Employment Contracts Statutory Employment Rights Private Use of Motor Vehicles

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Gillies

Applicant

Kenneth Darvall Crocker

Applicant

Gregory John Driver

First Applicant

Keith Hornshaw

Second Applicant

Christopher Bentley

Applicant

Health Administration Corporation

First Respondent

Western Sydney Area Health Service

Second Respondent

Northern Sydney Area Health Service

Second Respondent

South Western Sydney Area Health Service

Second Respondent

Wentworth Area Health Service

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the unilateral alteration of employment contracts regarding private motor vehicle use by the employer was unfair under s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the introduction of the 1998 policy unilaterally and over objection constituted unfair contract terms
  3. 3 Whether contributions and deductions imposed for vehicle use and parking were unfairly calculated and imposed

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that unilateral alteration of the applicants' contracts, specifically concerning increased deductions for private motor vehicle use imposed by the 1998 policy, was unfair. The 1990 policy, forming part of the contract either expressly or by conduct, did not permit such fundamental changes without consent or adequate notice. The increased contributions and policy changes effected by the respondents were not justified, imposed unfair financial burdens on the applicants, and were not contractually or statutorily authorised. Policies requiring payment for parking when vehicles were brought to work at the respondent's request added to the unfairness. The contracts must be...

Court Disposition

Applicants succeed. Contracts found to be unfair. Relief granted as specified.

Orders

  • Parties to confer and file agreed terms for variation of each applicant's contract to reinstate the 1990 policy with annual CPI adjustments, and resulting money orders (including interest) within 28 days.
  • Respondents to bear applicants' costs as agreed or assessed, with liberty to apply on costs within 28 days if no agreement.