Solicitors: : : W.G. Cases referred to in reasons: The Public Transport Authority of Western Australia v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry (2017) 97 WAIG 354 Union of Employees, Western Australian Branch The Public Transport Authority of Western Australia v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry (2017) 97 WAIG 361 Union of Employees, Western Australian Branch Cases also cited: [2012] WASCA 29 Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Schoombee (1982) 149 CLR 337 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [2013] WASCA 287 Director General, Department of Education v United Voice WA (1996) 66 IR 182 Kucks v CSR Ltd [2015] WASC 247 Re Harrison; Ex parte Hames Robe River Iron Associates v Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union of Western (1987) 67 WAIG 1097 Australia [2014] WASCA 164 Technomin Australia Pty Ltd v Xstrata Nickel Australasia Operations Pty Ltd The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees, West Australian Branch v Public (2015) 95 WAIG 1503 Transport Authority of Western Australia The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees, West Australian Branch v Public [2017] WASCA 86 Transport Authority of Western Australia The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees, West Australian Branch v Public (2015) 95 WAIG 545 Transport Authority of Western Australia The Australian Workers' Union, West Australian Branch, Industrial Union of Workers v (2004) 84 WAIG 2568 Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd and Sons of Gwalia (2014) 94 WAIG 472 United WA v The Minister for Health Reasons for Decision Clause 6.1.3 of the Public Transport Authority/ARTBIU (Transperth Train Operations Rail gives rail car drivers certain benefits when a public Car Drivers) Industrial Agreement 2016 holiday on an employee’s rostered day off.” “falls A dispute has developed between the applicant and respondent in relation to the meaning of the term day off” in clause 6.1.3. The applicant seeks a declaration of the true “rostered interpretation of the term and, if it is correct in the interpretation for which it contends, a variation to the agreement to reflect it. The dispute may be stated very simply.
Solicitors: : : W.G. Cases referred to in reasons: The Public Transport Authority of Western Australia v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees, Western Australian Branch (2017) 97 WAIG 354 The Public Transport Authority of Western Australia v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees, Western Australian Branch (2017) 97 WAIG 361 Cases also cited: Attorney General for Western Australia v Her Honour Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337 Director General, Department of Education v United Voice WA [2013] WASCA 287 Kucks v CSR Ltd (1996) 66 IR 182 Re Harrison; Ex parte Hames [2015] WASC 247 Robe River Iron Associates v Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union of Western Australia (1987) 67 WAIG 1097 Technomin Australia Pty Ltd v Xstrata Nickel Australasia Operations Pty Ltd [2014] WASCA 164 The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees, West Australian Branch v Public Transport Authority of Western Australia (2015) 95 WAIG 1503 The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees, West Australian Branch v Public Transport Authority of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 86 The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees, West Australian Branch v Public Transport Authority of Western Australia (2015) 95 WAIG 545 The Australian Workers' Union, West Australian Branch, Industrial Union of Workers v Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd and Sons of Gwalia (2004) 84 WAIG 2568 United WA v The Minister for Health (2014) 94 WAIG 472 Reasons for Decision Clause 6.1.3 of the Public Transport Authority/ARTBIU (Transperth Train Operations Rail Car Drivers) Industrial Agreement 2016 gives rail car drivers certain benefits when a public holiday “falls on an employee’s rostered day off.” A dispute has developed between the applicant and respondent in relation to the meaning of the term “rostered day off” in clause 6.1.3. The applicant seeks a declaration of the true interpretation of the term and, if it is correct in the interpretation for which it contends, a variation to the agreement to reflect it. The dispute may be stated very simply.
APPL-18-2017-201700283.DOCX