Insight,

Order restored: High Court focuses on context and intention in Mondelez appeal

AU | EN
Current site :    AU   |   EN
Australia
Belgium
China
China Hong Kong SAR
Germany
Italy
Japan
Singapore
Spain
UAE
United Kingdom
United States
Global

This article was written by Philip Willox, Ruth Rosedale and Holly Gretton.

Today, a majority of the High Court has set aside the decision of the full Federal Court in Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v AMWU & Ors [2019] FCFCA 138. Kiefel CJ, Nettle and Gordon JJ (and Edelman J in a separate judgment) upheld the appeals of Mondelez and the Federal Government on the basis that the proper interpretation of the word 'day' under section 96(1) the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) in respect to personal leave entitlements is a 'notional day,' rather than the 'working day' interpretation adopted by the full Federal Court.

The decision confirms (what many already thought was the case and in line with broad employment practice) that personal/carer's leave accrues and is paid based on ordinary hours of work, rather than the number of days. It affirms the purpose of section 96, which is to protect employees against loss of earnings when they need to take sick or carer's leave by reference to their ordinary hours of work. This means the amount of leave accrued does not vary according to the pattern of hours of work. This is of particular relevance to the entitlement for shift workers and part time workers, who would have had an enhanced entitlement under the 'working day' interpretation adopted by the full Federal Court.

The decision

The High Court majority (Gageler J dissenting) considered a number of interpretation principles to come to its view. As Justice Edelman (in a separate judgment) put it, to give effect to the meaning that a reasonable, informed reader would understand Parliament to have intended by the words used in their context.

The majority found the 'notional day' interpretation:

  • is consistent with the objects of the FW Act to provide fairness, flexibility, certainty and stability for employers and their employees;
  • accords more broadly with the FW Act and the context of the various uses of the word "day";
  • is reinforced by the way the entitlement was described and the examples provided in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill;
  • is consistent with the legislative history by reference to the previous Workplace Relations Act and intent for the entitlement to be simplified but not changed.

The majority echoed the concerns of employers by stating that the alternate 'working day' construction would create 'not only unfairness but also uncertainty' giving rise to 'absurd results' contrary to the legislative purposes of the FW Act, the extrinsic materials and the legislative history.

Impact

The High Court's decision is a relief for employers who would otherwise have been faced with a complex issue of reviewing past entitlements and resetting payroll systems and practices moving forward. It is a welcome return to certainty for employers in otherwise uncertain times.

For more details on the initial decision see our earlier articles on the case and the grant of special leave.

LATEST THINKING
Insight
On 2 August 2022, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 was passed (Aged Care Bill), introducing important regulatory changes to Australia’s aged care sector. The Bill makes numerous legislative amendments, including to the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) (Aged Care Act) and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 (Cth) (Transitional Provisions Act), and responds to various recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (Royal Commission) Final Report (Report). The Report identified the provision of substandard aged care services and perceived systemic failures in the aged care sector.[1]

08 August 2022

Insight
The Federal Court has refused an application to stay proceedings to quantify compensation for patent infringement (quantum proceedings) pending the outcome of separate parallel proceedings challenging the validity of the infringed patent on new grounds. The case is significant as intellectual property cases are regularly bifurcated with liability determined separately damages or an account of profits. A patentee may also bring consecutive infringement cases and therefore have two separate cases considering invalidity issues for the same patent running in parallel.

03 August 2022

Insight
Since the introduction of a nationwide Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) system in 2019, licenses have linked directly to therapeutic products rather than manufacturers.

03 August 2022