Post Amcor and Gribbles: A New Era for Succession of Business and Redundancy Law?

Abstract

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>[</span><span>On 9 March 2005, the High Court of Australia handed down two deci- sions of considerable importance for employers. The first decision, </span><span>Minis- ter for Employment and Workplace Relations v Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd </span><span>[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 </span><span>Workplace Relations Act 1996</span><span>. The second decision, </span><span>Am- cor Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Minister for Employment </span><span>[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. </span></p><p><span>Interestingly, the High Court adopted a 'textual' approach to statutory construction in </span><span>Gribbles </span><span>but a 'contextual' approach to the legal interpre- tation of the relevant clause in the agreement in question in </span><span>Amcor</span><span>. Not- withstanding these differing approaches, the result in each case is arguably favourable to employers.</span><span>] </span></p></div></div></div>