Certified Agreements and State Laws

By Joe Catanzariti

A case involving the entitlement of a casual employee to long service leave has implications for state awards.

The decision in Compass Group (Australia) Pty Ltd v Bartram [2207] FCAFC 26 (9 March 2007) was that where a certified agreement is intended to cover the field of a particular subject then any inconsistent state law which also covers that subject is excluded from operation.

The Federal Court was hearing an appeal from a Vic Magistrates Court ruling that Mr Bartram was entitled to long service leave under the Long Service Leave Act 1992 (Vic).

The employer contended that the agreement and the relevant award covered the field with respect to LSL and thus the state act was not relevant to Mr Bartram. The Magistrate said it was not the intention of the award ort agreement to cover the field as they explicitly excluded casual workers form their scope. and thus the state act had the capacity to cover casuals.

They held that the entitlements of casuals was not deliberately left unrecognized by the award or agreement and thus the state law was inconsistent with federal law (ie the Workplace Relations Act).

(CCH Work Alert; issue 3, 23 April 2007; p5-6