Case Study Analysis: Industrial Dispute - Wendy Swan vs Legibook Case

This case study analyzes the industrial dispute between Wendy Lorraine Swan and Legibook Cooperative, focusing on Wendy's claim for damages due to psychiatric injuries allegedly caused by a colleague, Mr. Cowell. Wendy alleges negligence on Legibook's part for exposing her to an unsafe workplace and bullying. The case explores the application of the Unitary Model of employment law, highlighting the master-servant relationship in the absence of a formal contract and the implications of ignoring Wendy's complaints. The study references relevant literature on industrial disputes and employment rights in Australia, concluding with Wendy's pursuit of compensation in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Running Head: Industrial Dispute
Title:
Assignment Name:
Student Name
Course Name and Number:
Professor:
Date:

Industrial Dispute
Contents
Introduction:.........................................................................................3
The Unitary Model:..............................................................................3
References..........................................................................................6

Industrial Dispute
Introduction:
In the present case the plaintiff i.e. Wendy Lorraine Swan claimed the damages for the pain
and sufferings and also the loss on account of money from the defendant i.e. Legibook
Cooperative. She submits that during the course of her employment time she faced many
psychiatric injuries by one of the employees at defendants company i.e., Mr. Cowell. The
plaintiff further alleges that the negligence on the part of the defendant proves from the fact
that she was exposed to the unsafe workplace and also subject to the bullying, harassing and
intimidating conduct. The Legibook worked as the specialist law book cooperative from the
basement of the law building of the Monash University (Baker, 2007). It has been employed
by the two permanent workers i.e. the manager and an assistant. Wendy employed as an
assistant with the defendant i.e. Legibook between 2002 and October 2008. The other
employee i.e. Mr. Cowell was employed as Manager between 2002 and 2007. In the present
case, plaintiff i.e. Wendy alleged Mr. Cowell to be responsible for the bullying, harassing and
the conduct.
The Unitary Model:
The Unitary Model is defined to be the less sympathetic to the presence of the trade unions
and the equivalent in the place of work. Furthermore, it is submitted that as considered it is
the conflict in the efficient performance of the managerial functions and the required
protection of the interest of the employee (Perry, 2005). The Unitary Model law controls the
law of employment which anticipate the introduction of the collective dealings and the
recognitions of the trade unions. The present given situation in the given case law based upon
the principal of law of master and servant as in the present case there is no formal contract of
employment or the applicable job description (What influences the progression of
employment rights disputes? 2015). The brief of the present case is that Wendy Swan applied

Industrial Dispute
for the position as the retail sales assistant with the defendant i.e. Legibook in July 2002. It is
further submitted that the there was no formal contract of employment, the advertisement
upon which she applied stated that her duty primarily to look after the book sales and the
customer service. Other responsibilities would include the managing the cooperative’s
membership database, returns of the unsold stock and to assist the manager with some works
(Portus and Brissenden, 1967). Wendy was working with great honesty and enthusiasm, but
after some time of the employment, Wendy made a complaint to the board members of the
company regarding the act of Mr. Cowell. She further submits that the act of Mr. Cowell was
strange and behaves with Wendy very rudely. She also submits that he is very moody. Many
times the complaints against the act and conduct of Mr. Cowell was made but to no avail and
the board members always used to ignore the complaints of Wendy. After that she moved to
the Supreme court of Victoria at Melbourne whereby she got the amount of compensation on
account of the pain and sufferings (McDonald, 2000). As per the present given case, the
relationship of both the parties are of master and servant as there was no formal agreement
about the job profile and furthermore, it is submitted that every time the complaints made by
Wendy were ignored by the board members. As per the decided case law, the words
“employer and employee” is associate with the words “master and servant”. Furthermore in
the modern days the workers did not like to speak or think of their employer/boss as master
but it is most important to mention here that the principles which governed the kind of
relationships generally exists between the two people who are performing their service and
the person to whom the services rendered will remain the same. So, under the Unitary Model
law, it could not be apprehended that general common law of the employment has to maintain
the strong view of employee subordinations to the management control by getting the unitary
approach of the management and labour relations whereby the terms favourable to the
management have been generally applied in the employment contracts. The concise legal

Industrial Dispute
endorsement of the Unitary principles had given rise to the prima facie difficulty of the
compromise with any of the system based on the employee’s participation.

Industrial Dispute
References
Baker, D. (2007). From Batons to Negotiated Management: The Transformation of
Policing Industrial Disputes in Australia. Policing, 1(4), pp.390-402.
McDonald, J. (2000). Industrial Dispute Tactics in Australian Manufacturing. Industrial
Relations, 39(1), pp.115-138.
Perry, L. (2005). A LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE ON INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES IN
AUSTRALIA: 1913-2003. Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and
policy, 24(3), pp.263-279.
Portus, J. and Brissenden, P. (1967). The Settlement of Labor Disputes on Rights in
Australia. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 20(4), p.705.
What influences the progression of employment rights disputes?. (2015). Industrial
Relations Journal, 46(2), pp.117-133.