Case: Textile Footwear and Clothing Union of Australia v Bellechic Pty Ltd &amp; Ors [1998] FCA 1465
Outcome: cited
In the present case there is no express assignment from the third respondent or the first respondent to the transferee entities. The evidence of the pay slips do not sustain an inference that the presumptive assignment was ever accepted by any of the employees. In Textile Footwear and Clothing Union of Australia v Bellechic Pty Ltd &amp; Ors [1998] FCA 1465 , Ryan J at pg 9 expressed doubt whether the nomination of a new employer on pay slips, the issuing of group certificates and the payment of superannuation contributions could give rise to an inference that a presumptive assignment was ever accepted by the individual employees. Further, there is no evidence which demonstrates that the precise inter-relationship between the respondent entities or any other entity within the Ramsey group of companies relevantly associated with the abattoir operations, was ever brought to the active understanding of the employees. The much more likely inference is that any employee who became conscious of the title of a particular entity assumed that entity discharged an administrative organisational role on behalf of the relevant employer. There is no basis on the evidence for elevating those matters to the position of an actual or implied consent to an assignment. In addition, as between the abattoir operation and employees, the evidence does not suggest any conscious differentiation between particular entities. Exhibit 148 identifies the various methods adopted by the respondents for the description of the respondents. Examples are these. Deponent/Exhibit No. Description Delaforce 4 "NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES OF RAMSEY GROUP OF COMPANIES" RE proposed certified agreement Delaforce 9 "NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES OF THE SOUTH GRAFTON ABATTOIR" RE proposed certified agreement Delaforce 11 Letter 22-02-02 "SOUTH GRAFTON ABATTOIR" "the employing companies" "management" "we certainly encourage" "S B Ramsey Managing Director" Delaforce 12 Letter 08-03-02 "SOUTH GRAFTON ABATTOIR" "has come to our knowledge "R J Mortimer Abattoir Administration" Delaforce 16 Letter 22-02-02 Memo re certified agreement "SOUTH GRAFTON ABATTOIR" "S B Ramsey for and on behalf of South Grafton Abattoir " Delaforce 21 Letter 06-08-02 "SOUTH GRAFTON ABATTOIR" "Stuart Ramsey For and on behalf of the employers " Delaforce 24 Letter Stock shortage notice 29.08.02 "SOUTH GRAFTON ABATTOIR" "In accordance with our notice given on 21 August ..." 317 These references suggest that no particular differentiation as between the respondents was a matter of emphasis to Mr Ramsey in the dealings with the employees. The operation was the South Grafton Abattoir and the particular arrangements of entities and the roles they performed in the conduct of the abattoir was a matter of internal domestic organisation. 318 In support of the notion that invoking a stock shortage by the respondent employers was a construct to obfuscate the termination of the employees for a prohibited reason, the applicant says significant financial advantages accrued to the employers by invoking a stock shortage rather than making the employees redundant. The argument is put this way. Clause 17 deals with shortages of stock. Clause 17.1 concerning weekly employees is in these terms: 'Where the employer, on account of shortage of stock, gives notice of termination of employment to a weekly employee and immediately upon the expiration of that notice employs him as a casual employee, such employee shall be paid in any week after such expiration in which less than five days work is offered, at the rate of 1-5 th of the appropriate weekly rate plus 15% for each day worked.' Nothing in cl 171. requires the employer to effect the termination. The clause creates certain consequences in the circumstances of the clause. Clause 46 deals with termination, change and redundancy. The clause applies in respect of full time and part time employees in the classifications described within the AWA. Clause 46.2 provides: 'Where the employer terminates the services of employees as the direct result of seasonal factors affecting the meat industry or shortages of livestock, the employer shall not be required to pay severance pay to the employees so terminated.'