POST AMCOR AND GRIBBLES: A NEW ERA FOR SUCCESSION OF BUSINESS AND REDUNDANCY LAW?

JOE CATANZARITI

Abstract


[On 9 March 2005, the High Court of Australia handed down two deci- sions of considerable importance for employers. The first decision, Minis- ter for Employment and Workplace Relations v Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 9 concerned the circumstances in which a "succession of business" or a part of a business will occur for the purposes of section 149(1)(d) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The second decision, Am- cor Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Minister for Employment [2005] HCA 10, pertained to whether, upon the facts pre- sented to the Court, a group of employees had been rendered redundant with a consequent (and cumulatively significant) entitlement to severance pay.

Interestingly, the High Court adopted a 'textual' approach to statutory construction in Gribbles but a 'contextual' approach to the legal interpre- tation of the relevant clause in the agreement in question in Amcor. Not- withstanding these differing approaches, the result in each case is arguably favourable to employers.] 


Full Text:

PDF


DOI: https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2005vol10no2art284

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



1835-9264

© Deakin University