| Summary |
DISPUTE – Issues for determination whether implied contractual term that relevant back pay payments be paid within reasonable time; if so, what time was; and whether respondent breached collective employment agreement (“CEA”) – Applicant sought declarations and costs – Penalties claim withdrawn – CEA settled by parties provided for two forms of backdating plus lump sum payment for all earnings in 2009 – Respondent informed union while lump sum could be paid as early as 27 January 2010 rest of payments may not occur until 10 March 2010 – Applicant informed respondent believed delay unacceptable – Applicant demanded payment by 10 February 2010 – Lump sum made on 27 January 2010 as advised – Authority noted respondent faced problem that payroll system could only manage complex back pay through analysing each individual employee and pay period by pay period – Respondent argued payments made as soon as calculations properly made and checked – Applicant argued delay not reasonable – Authority found assuming implied term existed could not be said respondent’s actions unreasonable – Found as CEA did not specify time within which new payments be made, respondent not operating to set deadline – Found respondent had to act reasonably – Found respondent made very reasonable response to take preparatory steps to start organising new payments before Christmas 2009 – Found unreasonable to expect respondent to pay sums outside normal fortnightly pay run for reasons of administrative efficiency – Found in context of degree of calculations required, time of year, amount of money involved, and need to carefully order payments for payroll system, completion by 10 March 2010 not simply reasonable but showed great deal of commitment by respondent staff involved – Application dismissed |