Ryan v Whitehaven Coal Mining Pty Ltd [2013] NSWLC 11

Ryan v Whitehaven Coal Mining Pty Ltd [2013] NSWLC 11

Section 90(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires that, when employment ends, payment for untaken annual leave must be made at the rate the employee would have received had they taken their annual leave, which in this case is the rate provided for in the Enterprise Agreement, including leave loading or projected earnings. The construction is consistent with the legislative purpose and statutory context, providing a minimum standard. The applicant was entitled to be paid $2,376.25.

Parties
Applicant: Stephen Edward Ryan; Respondent: Whitehaven Coal Mining Pty Ltd; Intervenor: Australian Mines and Metals Association
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Industrial Dispute / Judgment
Outcome
Applicant entitled to be paid $2,376.25
Legal Topics
Annual Leave Entitlements, Statutory Interpretation, Enterprise Agreement, National Employment Standards, Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)
Employment Law Industrial Law Annual Leave Entitlements Statutory Interpretation Enterprise Agreement National Employment Standards Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Edward Ryan

Applicant

Whitehaven Coal Mining Pty Ltd

Respondent

Australian Mines and Metals Association

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Industrial Dispute / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment for untaken annual leave upon resignation must include leave loading or be paid at the ordinary rate
  2. 2 Construction of s 90(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

Section 90(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires that, when employment ends, payment for untaken annual leave must be made at the rate the employee would have received had they taken their annual leave, which in this case is the rate provided for in the Enterprise Agreement, including leave loading or projected earnings. The construction is consistent with the legislative purpose and statutory context, providing a minimum standard. The applicant was entitled to be paid $2,376.25.

Court Disposition

Applicant entitled to be paid $2,376.25

Orders

  • Respondent to pay applicant $2,376.25