Alan Albert Kiffen v Arnolds CFD Pty Limited [1995] IRCA 215

Alan Albert Kiffen v Arnolds CFD Pty Limited [1995] IRCA 215

Although the respondent had a valid reason related to the applicant's work performance and the termination did not arise from his illness-related absence, the June conversations did not identify the performance concerns in any sensible manner, did not explain the required improvements or consequences, did not put the applicant on notice that termination was possible, and were not sufficiently contemporaneous with the September termination. The respondent therefore failed to comply with S170DC and to accord procedural fairness under S170DE(2), making the termination harsh, unjust and unreasonable. Reinstatement was not shown to be impracticable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Concerning Termination of Employment / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Termination found harsh, unjust and unreasonable; reinstatement and payment of lost remuneration ordered.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'procedural Fairness' 'work Performance' 'reinstatement' 'lost Remuneration']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'procedural Fairness' 'work Performance' 'reinstatement' 'lost Remuneration']

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 S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Concerning Termination of Employment / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent had a valid reason related to the applicant's work performance for terminating his employment." "Whether the respondent complied with S170DC of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and accorded procedural fairness pursuant to S170DE(2) before terminating the applicant's employment." 'Whether the termination was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.' 'Whether reinstatement was impracticable and what remuneration should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondent had a valid reason related to the applicant's work performance and the termination did not arise from his illness-related absence, the June conversations did not identify the performance concerns in any sensible manner, did not explain the required improvements or consequences, did not put the applicant on notice that termination was possible, and were not sufficiently contemporaneous with the September termination. The respondent therefore failed to comply with S170DC and to accord procedural fairness under S170DE(2), making the termination harsh, unjust and unreasonable. Reinstatement was not shown to be impracticable.

Court Disposition

Termination found harsh, unjust and unreasonable; reinstatement and payment of lost remuneration ordered.

Orders

  • ['That the respondent reinstate the applicant to the position in which he was employed immediately prior to the termination of his employment, or to another position on terms and conditions no less favourable and that the reinstatement take effect on and from the date of this order.' 'That within 21 days the...