Whimpress v Ki Export Abattoir Ltd [1996] IRCA 382

Whimpress v Ki Export Abattoir Ltd [1996] IRCA 382

The Applicant was employed on a regular and systematic basis for 38 hours per week, had worked for the Respondent for three seasons, and had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment through the 1995-1996 season; he was therefore not a casual employed for a short period or for a specified period and was not excluded by Regulation 30B. The Judicial Registrar preferred the Applicant's evidence about the events of 15 December 1995, found the Respondent's witness unsatisfactory, and held that the Respondent failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond before termination. The termination was unlawful. Reinstatement was impracticable because the season had ended, so...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act Alleging Unlawful Termination of Employment and Seeking Reinstatement / Reasons for Judgment and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Termination found unlawful; reinstatement refused as impracticable; compensation awarded to the Applicant.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'casual Employment' 'regulation 30 B Exclusion' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'procedural Fairness' 'reinstatement' 'compensation']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'casual Employment' 'regulation 30 B Exclusion' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'procedural Fairness' 'reinstatement' 'compensation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Pursuant to S 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act Alleging Unlawful Termination of Employment and Seeking Reinstatement / Reasons for Judgment and Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant was excluded from Part VIA Division 3 of the Industrial Relations Act by virtue of Regulation 30B.' 'Whether the Applicant was a casual employed for a short period of time or employed for a specified period of time.' "Whether the termination of the Applicant's employment on 15 December 1995 was unlawful." 'Whether reinstatement or compensation was the appropriate remedy.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant was employed on a regular and systematic basis for 38 hours per week, had worked for the Respondent for three seasons, and had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment through the 1995-1996 season; he was therefore not a casual employed for a short period or for a specified period and was not excluded by Regulation 30B. The Judicial Registrar preferred the Applicant's evidence about the events of 15 December 1995, found the Respondent's witness unsatisfactory, and held that the Respondent failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond before termination. The termination was unlawful. Reinstatement was impracticable because the season had ended, so...

Court Disposition

Termination found unlawful; reinstatement refused as impracticable; compensation awarded to the Applicant.

Orders

  • ['The Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $9,400 within 21 days.']