Brien -V- Harrisons Timber and Hardware [2005] NSWIRComm 1001

Brien -V- Harrisons Timber and Hardware [2005] NSWIRComm 1001

The dismissal was harsh, unreasonable and unjust because the employer did not establish the alleged substantive reasons for dismissal, including poor performance or disobedience regarding cold calls, failed to give the applicant proper warning that his work performance placed his employment at risk, and implemented...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 [nsw] for Relief in Relation to Alleged Unfair Dismissal / Arbitration Decision After Three Days of Hearing
Outcome
Application upheld; dismissal determined to be harsh, unreasonable and unjust; compensation ordered.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'termination of Employment' 'poor Work Performance' 'procedural Fairness' 'warnings' 'compensation']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'termination of Employment' 'poor Work Performance' 'procedural Fairness' 'warnings' 'compensation']

Source-derived case record

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 Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 [nsw] for Relief in Relation to Alleged Unfair Dismissal / Arbitration Decision After Three Days of Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the employer established a substantive basis for dismissing the applicant for poor sales performance, failure to make required cold calls, or failure to comply with directions.' 'Whether the applicant was given proper warning of unsatisfactory work performance before dismissal.' 'Whether the manner of implementing the dismissal was harsh, unreasonable or unjust.' 'Whether reinstatement, re-employment or compensation was the appropriate remedy.']

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal was harsh, unreasonable and unjust because the employer did not establish the alleged substantive reasons for dismissal, including poor performance or disobedience regarding cold calls, failed to give the applicant proper warning that his work performance placed his employment at risk, and implemented the dismissal in an unnecessarily hasty, undignified and harsh manner. Reinstatement or re-employment was impracticable, so compensation was ordered.

Court Disposition

Application upheld; dismissal determined to be harsh, unreasonable and unjust; compensation ordered.

Orders

  • ['The Commission Orders that the employer pay to the applicant an amount of compensation of $12,900.00. This amount is a gross figure and appropriate taxation treatment is a matter for the Parties.' 'The amount of compensation specified in Order 1 above is to be paid by the employer to the applicant within twenty...