Bodensee Holdings Pty Ltd v Brischke [1994] ICQ 22 (1994) 146 QGIG 915

914 Q EENSLA D GOVERNME T INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [12 August, 1994 12 August , 1994] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 915 ######11-##lf./1/J,Ufff-ffffffffff'fllflflHflffffffffH+ftftftttH-ttr,,r,.nr,r,r,-,,-.,,..,,,,"""""" QUEENSLAND INDUSTR IAL COUR T Jndusirial Relmions Ac 1 199() s. 11 8(3) - appeal from dec ision of industri al magistrate Bode nsee Holdings Pty. Lid. A 10 Edward James Brischke (So. C/6 o/199.J) JUS TI CE MACKENZ IE. PRESIDENT J3 Ju ly 1994 Appeal - Decision of lndus1rial Magistrate - lnd11 strial Relations Ao /990 - s. 54 ., - Wages - Award Coverage - Area o f Operat ion - Appli cation of Award - Paying Guest - Evidence - Appeal Allowed -- 1 of 2 -- 916 Q EE SLAND GOVERNME T INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE rI 2 Au gu ·t. 19 94 - Order . Di char0 ed - Remillt:d 10 Industrial agi 1ra1e for re- hearing. REP RT ON JUD ' MENT (A ' ED ITED) In gi, ing hi . Judgmen1 Ii m the Ben h on 13 Jui) 1994. Lh Pre ideni id :- •• number o grounds appeal hnv bee n rai . cd ngainsl a decisi-0n o f 1he Industrial l ag i • rate a Cairns in "hieb he: ordered the appellant. under sec1ion 543 o f the Industrial Rehiti ons A t, lo pay s um · of money to two em ploye es on th e bas is that 1hey had b en underpaid un d er the Board ing Hou ·e Empt )CCS , ar d - · 1ali; ( -xcluding : u1h - · as1 Queensland). \\ ha1 I am. bout 10 ay focuses onl) on one or 1hose ground~ of appea l and Lh at is whe th er there w~ ufticient evidence 10 . urport the Industria l MagistJme·s finding lhat that ward applied. That issue was 5quarely raised at the heari ng by the accountant fo r th e appe ll am who rcpresemed Lhc appe ll ant n that occasion. The respondents \\Crc represented also by :i la) ad ocatc. an officer fthe Au Lralian Workers ' nion. The Award is expressed lo app ly 10 a ll employc,cs for whom cla -s ilications and rates f pay arc pre cribed in lhe Award em ployed in boarding h u ·e ·. mo1els. h ·tels, pri"ate hotel . en iced room or nat aml any other Lype of re ide nti,1I tou ri st acco m1 11odal ion and to their employers in certa in areas that ar th en de cr ihed in clau. c 2 and clause .> of the ward _ Cl~u:;e 5 of the Award prov id es a de fin it io n . It ay , ·The telin .. Boarding Hou se " ... lolels ... "Hostel ••... Pr ivate I lo1els .. . •• ervi d Room r Flats.. and .. ny other type of Re id,mtial or Tot1rist Ac ommodmion•· shall be de rned 10 mean a nd include any accom moda ti on establi.. hment in which accommoda ti on i provided for ·even or m re payin6 gue~ts. b ardcr or lodge not being members of the famil , of the proprietor or mana •e r. bu t shall not be dccmt!d to in lmlc an1 f the estab lishme nts and/ r institut i 11 s na med in 'chcdulc I lO t hi s Award nor 10 Ooardi n , chool.. lieges. Ho ;p i1al . Industrial Sehc, I " or Th~ Jcba te before me concentrated on lhc words • ·even or m re paying gu is· \\ith particular reference being made to Lhc oncept f wha1 "• a paying guest. r Herbert subm i lt ed es enlially thai th at should be not c nstruc d narrowly; 1ha1 payi ng gu est~ we re guest to be regarded in c nlra istincti n 10 hou guc Ll. r people . 1a_-in g gra1ui1ously 111 premise , u h as relativ • or other g ue ts of 1h prnprictor. He , in effo t wilho11 t d )ing violence to whal he . aid. wo ll ld · 11 bmi t tha t ·~ guest in re p~ct of whom some on o paym nt "a ma e wa a payin g ue . L Mr · :i rn p on the o the r hand took a 111 re restri ti e view_ His submission was csse 11 1io ll y that l1 pay in g guest was someone who po1d and that there was n e, •idencc 01 all in 1h1, case that lhc n.i, r personnel lilted rhat description . I cim disp o. e f this particu lar aspect o f the ma tt er wi thout resolvi ng the qL1cstion of precise!}' de lin ing what is a aying g_ e t. I uspt! t Lha1 i1 \\0 uld be unprofitable and rraughl \\ ith ri k to attempt an c ·hau ·1i,·e defi nition app li cable to all po"siblc factua l si tuations in any event. The shon ,IO ~wcr to the que tion in rht . case i. that hccause f tJ1c wa~ in which 1he a ·e was condu 1cJ. and I a} that" nhout an} J i n: ·p tci:1 10 lit e wh were in\'ol ved in it. there ,-.,s at the end no eviden ce at a ll of a sau fa LOI)· n ilt urc of t he h as1 upon which the navy pe onnel were a omrnodatcd at th premise in que 1ion. The Ind ustrial Magist ra te put the maile r this way . 'T he question po ed by Mr Ward i whetht:r lhe navy personne l 11n be described as paying guests, bo rdc or I g.:rs_ The accommodati n is apparent! provid d by their em pl oyee ( ·ic) fo r their use wh ilst in the service of the Austra li an Na y. l d no.think that the " rds pa ing guc. ts. or oardc or lodgers, are mean1 10 be confined I the lirs1 ltuation whi h comes II mind. The gue I who pay or his lodgi ng in le gal tender curre ncy . I th in · tha1 c" n if navy personnel do not make p3)'ment for tht:ir accommodatioll b -ay dedu ti ns fro rn their salaf}. payment is nol meam to be confined 10 11c tual cash pay men t. he accommodation mu . t be part of their mpl ymen 1 c nditions. o the a.re in faci paying for their a commodntion by their .crvices to their cmp lo)Cr. ·. I think that on the stat of the ev idence tl1 ere i, 11 basis upon which n inference an properly be dra,~n that the: personnel were payi ng gue IS . I thin on Lhe ·tme o the evi dence, and I stre ss that again. any conclus1on in th at n:gard is merely specul ative . I w ill ay no more ll1an th is in di sposing o th i: aspect o the maller. because th e pr oper c urse i for the maner to be rem1ued t the lndu tria l MaV, is1 ra 1e . It h been fi rcshadowed tha t there ill be an i . ue whether the \\ard applies at all because o an arrangement Lhat is sa id lo have existed between Lhe A WU an d the predecessor to the present appellant as 10 the ba i of cmpl ymenl of workers in chi: e tabli hm n . I need not sa any m re than that about that a ·pcct of ii at this stage . Howe,e r it can be snid that if the matter doe •o back before t he Magisu ate th ost: iss ues can be raised al li1r ge before him . I h uld als ii)' tha nothing that I ha c said o far 5hould be tnken to indicate any ie w a;; to the p roper interpretat.i.on of tt ic pl1ra sc ·paying gues t' beca use m the end 1hat will have to be a malter of su mi sion be~ re the Magi Ira te in the light of th e evidence and in the en it will be a queslion or ract, I think. whether on the Cl' idence be ore t!hc Magi ·trate at the e nd of Lhc heari n g, th ose who arc ace mmodai ed at the prem ises fit that J script io n. A c rcl ing!y I have come to the col'lclu i n that th decision of the Industrial Magistrate ca nnot be su pp oncJ havi ng re ga rd to the nature of the evidence before him . The a ppr priatc order is that the appeal will be allowed. The order mad b:, the fagis1ra1c on 12 8} 199-1 will bt! di scharged. The matter wi ll be remitt ed to 1hc Industr ia l Magi strates Court, Ca irns. fo r re-h eanng. prefera bl y before an 1hcr lndu 1r1al Magi trate. \\lth a di rection that all n cc • af} adjournmen ts be cn1ered and 1ha t the matter be he , rd and de1em1ined accordin g to law. '' . D~ tcd this thirteenth dn • or July. 1994. By the Court. [L ..'.] MJ ALLEN, Industrial R gi 1rar. 12 Augu t .1 994] Q EE L D OVERNME T INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE Appcarances :- Mr .F. Camp, , ilh nirn Mr M. A. Misch~uln ig (instructed b} F. ump & As ociat.es) for Bodensee Ho ld in g Pty. Ltd . Ian Mr Herbert (in truc1ed by .A. Sci & Asso iate ) for Edward J an1 • • Brischke Op e ra tive Date : NIA Report on Jud gment - Bodcnsee Holdingi; Pt} . 1d. and •. Brischkc Relea ed: 29 July 19 94 ######ll#########l## ## ###lt#####/#1##1# lf.# ###/l ll###ll###/1#11### 9 17 -- 2 of 2 --