Bowley, Trevor John v McCaffertys Management Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 611

Bowley, Trevor John v McCaffertys Management Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 611

The pleaded coach services were scheduled passenger intercity services, but they were not "express intercity services" within the Award because they included numerous scheduled and discretionary intermediate stops, including major population centres and other set-down and pick-up points, and were operated akin to route or all-stations services rather than fastest direct services with no or few intermediate stops. Because the applicant failed to prove that any pleaded route was an express intercity service, the drivers were not shown to be employed on long distance express service work for the purposes of clauses 9(4), 13(d) and 13(e), and the alleged award breaches were not made out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Imposition of Pecuniary Penalty for Alleged Breaches of an Award Under S 178(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing on Agreed Facts
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interpretation of Award' 'breach of Award' 'long Distance Express Service Work' 'express Intercity Services' 'pecuniary Penalty']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['interpretation of Award' 'breach of Award' 'long Distance Express Service Work' 'express Intercity Services' 'pecuniary Penalty']

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 for Imposition of Pecuniary Penalty for Alleged Breaches of an Award Under S 178(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing on Agreed Facts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent\'s pleaded passenger coach services were "long distance express service work" within the meaning of the Transport Workers\' (Passenger Vehicles) Award 1984.' 'Whether the pleaded services were "scheduled passenger express intercity services" and therefore attracted payments under clauses 9(4), 13(d) and 13(e) of the Award.' 'Whether the respondent underpaid drivers by failing to pay the additional shift amount and shift loadings claimed by the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded coach services were scheduled passenger intercity services, but they were not "express intercity services" within the Award because they included numerous scheduled and discretionary intermediate stops, including major population centres and other set-down and pick-up points, and were operated akin to route or all-stations services rather than fastest direct services with no or few intermediate stops. Because the applicant failed to prove that any pleaded route was an express intercity service, the drivers were not shown to be employed on long distance express service work for the purposes of clauses 9(4), 13(d) and 13(e), and the alleged award breaches were not made out.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']