{"issue_text":"Whether the transfer from tuck shop assistant to cook amounted to a demotion","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Transfer from grade 5 to grade 4 position"}
{"issue_text":"Whether appellant should be paid for extra duties performed","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Performance of cleaning, laundry, and alleged stores duties"}
{"issue_text":"Whether appellant should be compensated for overtime worked","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Allegation of 1.5 hours daily overtime at priest's house"}
{"issue_text":"Whether terminal benefits were improperly calculated and delayed","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Claim of incorrect calculation and delayed payment"}
{"issue_text":"Whether appellant was denied opportunity to make oral submissions at arbitration","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appellant's claim of procedural unfairness"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant, employed by Mt St Mary's Mission since 2007, was transferred from tuck shop assistant to cook/domestic worker in 2009, then to school kitchen in 2013. She resisted the transfer, was absent without authority, and was dismissed in November 2013. She claimed demotion, extra duties, overtime, and improper terminal benefits calculation.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases