CORRIGENDUM

In the first full paragraph on page 18 of the above Reasons for Judgment the words “Section 149(2)(c) of the Act provides that” should be deleted and in its place the following words should be inserted:

            “Section 149(2)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 provided, at all material times, that:”.

Daniel Star

Acting Associate to Marshall J

23 October 1997

CORRIGENDUM

In the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Marshall on 22 October 1997:

1.                  The cases cited on the front page:

“Maney v Gazal Clothing Co Pty Ltd [1973] AR (NSW) 547”

should read:

“Manley v Gazal Clothing Co Pty Ltd [1973] AR (NSW) 547”

and:

“R v Commonwealth Conciliation & Arbitration Commission; Ex parte Association of Professional Engineers’, Australia, (1959) 107 CLR 208, considered”

should read:

“R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte Association of Professional Engineers’, Australia (1959) 107 CLR 208, considered.”

2.                  In the first and third paragraphs on page 7 please delete the word “Upon” and replace with “Upton”.

3.                  In the second line on page 16 the word “Manly” should be deleted and replaced with “Manley”.

4.                  On page 18 in the first line of the quote of s149(2) it should read:

“ … is binding on an employer…

5.                  On page 20 after the quotation in the third line “Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904” should read “Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth)”.

6.                  On page 28 in the quote under the heading “IS IT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A DECLARATION AS SOUGHT BY THE UNION?”

It should read:

“By way of an alternative to specific performance, the appellant seeks a declaration that his employment was not lawfully terminated. There are circumstances in which the making of a declaration upon such a matter may serve a useful purpose; for example, where some ancillary benefit can thereby be obtained. But in this case, if specific performance is refused, the making of a declaration will not achieve any useful purpose. We bear in mind what was said by Barwick CJ and Jacobs J in Neeta (Epping) Pty Ltd v Phillips (1974) 131 CLR 286 at 307; 3 ALR 151 at 168: ‘Unless the parties are agreed on the consequences which flow from a declaration that such a contract has or has not been validly rescinded it is generally undesirable that the court should so declare without any orders for consequential relief.’ That comment was made about a contract for the sale of land. It seems to us that it applies even more strongly to a case where a contract of employment has been breached in circumstances of industrial tension.”

I certify that this is a true copy

of the corrigendum made to the

reasons for judgment in this

matter of the Honourable

Justice Marshall

Associate:

Date: