Birner v Aircraft Turnaround Engineering Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1085

Birner v Aircraft Turnaround Engineering Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1085

The appeal was dismissed because the primary Judge's findings were open on the evidence: Mr Birner was told and accepted in February 2010 that his employment was casual at $45 per hour; the May 2010 letter was prepared for finance purposes and did not create or vary the legal relationship; the phrase "Casual full...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Decision in Birner V Aircraft Turnaround Engineering Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 852
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['casual Employment' 'annual Leave Entitlement' 'fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'airline Operations – Ground Staff Award 2010' 'individual Flexibility Arrangements' 'payroll Records']
['industrial Law' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['casual Employment' 'annual Leave Entitlement' 'fair Work Act 2009 (cth)' 'airline Operations – Ground Staff Award 2010' 'individual Flexibility Arrangements' 'payroll Records']

Source-derived case record

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 / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Decision in Birner V Aircraft Turnaround Engineering Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 852

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary Judge erred by finding that Mr Birner had been informed of the terms of his engagement, including his classification as a casual employee.' 'Whether the primary Judge erred by finding that the May 2010 letter did not establish a new legal relationship nor change the existing legal relationship between the parties and correctly reflected the existing arrangement.' 'Whether the primary Judge erred in holding that the phrase "Casual full time basis" represented an arrangement under which Mr Birner was and remained a casual employee, tending to work full time hours.' 'Whether the primary Judge erred by accepting evidence alleged to be false and misleading.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the primary Judge's findings were open on the evidence: Mr Birner was told and accepted in February 2010 that his employment was casual at $45 per hour; the May 2010 letter was prepared for finance purposes and did not create or vary the legal relationship; the phrase "Casual full time basis" denoted casual employment with regular or full-time hours rather than permanent full-time employment; the Award and s 62 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) did not convert the engagement into full-time employment; WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene did not disturb the conclusion that the relationship was casual; and the allegation of falsified pay records was not substantiated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.']