ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – two questions in dispute – first dispute related to incorrect interpretation of terms of Port Botany (PB) and Fisherman Islands (FIT) Patrick Site Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2012 – 2015 and the Stevedoring Industry Award 2010 which concerned amounts due as entitlements arising in circumstances of redundancy – employee submitted terms contained in clause 24.6.4 of the Agreement operated to give life to particular terms of Award – proper construction of clause 23.2(a) of the Award established that qualification or requirement of 10 years’ service before which an entitlement to payment of accrued personal leave applied, operated as a condition to the entitlement only upon resignation – second contest involved question of service for the purposes of a redundancy payment under the clause 15.4 of the Agreement – term ‘service’ should be construed to include service as a casual employee, rather than confined to service as a weekly hired (permanent) employee – employer submitted that the resolution of the two issues in contest involved a case about English words and what they mean, and how the meaning of those words is derived – terms of clause 23.2(a) of Award very straightforward – clear all of the particular circumstances mentioned, death, retirement, redundancy or resignation, were caught by a qualification of 10 years’ service, before an entitlement to payment of accrued personal/carer’s leave was established – no proper basis to construe terms of clause 15.4 of Agreement to provide for calculation of redundancy payments to include periods of casual employment as service – Golden Cockerel adopted – Commission found construction of clause 23.2 of the Award results in an entitlement for an employee to receive payment of accrued personal/carer’s leave when their employment is terminated in the circumstances of death; or retirement; or redundancy; or resignation, in the case of resignation only, employee must have completed at least 10 years’ service – second contested construction question involved clause 15.4 of the Agreement, and the proposition advanced by the employee that redundancy payments should be made in respect to periods of employment as a casual – proposition is rejected and the employer’s construction for the terms of clause 15.4 of the Agreement is confirmed. The Maritime Union of Australia v Skilled Group Limited t/a ATIVO Maintenance & Project Services.
…
