UnitingCare NSW.ACT v Hancock [2014] FCA 391

UnitingCare NSW.ACT v Hancock [2014] FCA 391

There was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the respondents were both told and actually performed duties in charge of both the Nursing Home and Hostel, and there was no requirement for a formal, overt act of designation. The Chief Industrial Magistrate did not err in concluding the respondents were entitled to the higher allowance.

Parties
Appellant: UnitingCare NSW.ACT; First Respondent: Elizabeth Hancock; Second Respondent: Hilary Killen; Third Respondent: Leeanne Watsford; Fourth Respondent: Gabrielle Copeland; Fifth Respondent: Robyn Chapman; Sixth Respondent: Deborah Caine; Seventh Respondent: Jillian Archer; Eighth Respondent: Julieann Smith; Ninth Respondent: Kerrie Knox; Tenth Respondent: Linda Gilmore; Eleventh Respondent: Nenita Gates; Twelfth Respondent: Bernadette McGuinness
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Awards and Agreements, Allowance Entitlements, Designation of Duties, Small Claims Procedure, Registered Nurses – Supervisory Duties, Payment of Allowances
Industrial Law Employment Law Awards and Agreements Allowance Entitlements Designation of Duties Small Claims Procedure Registered Nurses – Supervisory Duties Payment of Allowances

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UnitingCare NSW.ACT

Appellant

Elizabeth Hancock

First Respondent

Hilary Killen

Second Respondent

Leeanne Watsford

Third Respondent

Gabrielle Copeland

Fourth Respondent

Robyn Chapman

Fifth Respondent

Deborah Caine

Sixth Respondent

Jillian Archer

Seventh Respondent

Julieann Smith

Eighth Respondent

Kerrie Knox

Ninth Respondent

Linda Gilmore

Tenth Respondent

Nenita Gates

Eleventh Respondent

Bernadette McGuinness

Twelfth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were entitled to be paid the 'in charge' allowance for a facility of more than 100 beds under the relevant awards/agreements.
  2. 2 Whether 'designation' by management was necessary for entitlement to the allowance.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supported a finding that respondents were in charge of both the Nursing Home and Hostel.

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the respondents were both told and actually performed duties in charge of both the Nursing Home and Hostel, and there was no requirement for a formal, overt act of designation. The Chief Industrial Magistrate did not err in concluding the respondents were entitled to the higher allowance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.