Login
Shine fends off attempt by ISGM to de-class action
The Federal Court has handed Shine Lawyers an initial victory in its class action against ISG Management.
Jerome Doraisamy
In late 2018, plaintiff firm Shine Lawyers filed a class action against workforce management company ISG Management (ISGM) on behalf of Robert Mutch and other telecommunication workers who the firm said have suffered financial losses since 2011 after entering into sub-contracting arrangements with ISGM.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
Shine alleges that, since at least 2011, ISGM has misrepresented the true nature of its engagement with thousands of telecommunication technicians in breach of the Fair Work Act.
The central question in the case, the firm said in a statement, is whether telecommunication workers who purportedly entered into subcontracting arrangements with ISGM were actually employees of ISGM and therefore entitled to employment entitlements such as leave and superannuation.
ISGM subsequently filed an application attempting to de-class the action, which would force workers to bring individual claims against the corporation, however on Wednesday, the Federal Court in Victoria “rejected ISGM’s submissions that there were insufficient common issues to constitute a class action, finding Shine’s class action valid”, the firm said.
“Justice [Mordy] Bromberg’s decision will allow us to move forward with our action and continue to work towards bringing justice to over 3,000 technicians who we say were misled into thinking they had actually been engaged by ISGM through a subcontracting model” said Shine class action practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos.
“Mr Mutch contended that flooding the court with over 3,000 individual actions or running the case as an opt-in class action (as ISGM contended), does not achieve access to justice for group members suffering under ISGM’s subcontracting business model.
“The court reaffirmed the will of the Australian parliament when it enacted the class action provisions over 25 years ago, that an opt-out process was the preferred model for class actions in Australia and should not be undermined by the court’s use of its power to close a class at an early stage which ISGM had contended for.
“ISGM’s subcontracting system of work has ongoing and continuing negative financial and personal implications for workers. The court’s judgment today confirmed that the substantive matters at issue in these proceedings, being ISGM’s system of work and subcontracting business model, involved sufficient common issues to be determined as a class action.”
“Like much of the community, many technicians including me are now being forced to stay home and because of ISGM’s subcontractor model I can’t access benefits such as sick leave or carer’s leave,” added ISGM worker George Baskedis.
