Young v Tieman Industries Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 111

Young v Tieman Industries Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 111

The respondent's failure to warn or consult the applicant, coupled with the cursory immediate termination after long service and a managerial role, made the employment contract unfair. Four weeks' notice was patently unreasonable, but 13 months was not justified; five months was fair, resulting in a further 17 weeks' pay. Additional annual leave, long service leave and superannuation for the notice period were refused because payment in lieu of notice was not further service and the applicant obtained alternative employment. Redundancy already paid was not separately increased, but its basic amount supported the notice assessment. The applicant was entitled to additional compensation for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Concerning an Alleged Unfair Contract of Employment / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; contract declared unfair and void from 21 August 1997 except in respect of payments made under or in relation to it; monetary compensation ordered; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'termination of Employment Without Notice' 'redundancy Payment' 'payment in Lieu of Notice' 'annual Leave' 'long Service Leave' 'superannuation' 'motor Vehicle Lease Benefit' 'mitigation of Loss']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'termination of Employment Without Notice' 'redundancy Payment' 'payment in Lieu of Notice' 'annual Leave' 'long Service Leave' 'superannuation' 'motor Vehicle Lease Benefit' 'mitigation of Loss']

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 Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Concerning an Alleged Unfair Contract of Employment / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the contract of employment between the applicant and respondent was unfair, harsh or unconscionable under s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' 'What amount of compensation should be ordered for payment in lieu of notice and redundancy following termination of employment.' 'Whether annual leave, long service leave and superannuation should be payable for the period in respect of which payment in lieu of notice was ordered.' 'Whether additional compensation should be ordered for the motor vehicle lease arrangement.' "Whether the applicant's alternative employment required any reduction for mitigation."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's failure to warn or consult the applicant, coupled with the cursory immediate termination after long service and a managerial role, made the employment contract unfair. Four weeks' notice was patently unreasonable, but 13 months was not justified; five months was fair, resulting in a further 17 weeks' pay. Additional annual leave, long service leave and superannuation for the notice period were refused because payment in lieu of notice was not further service and the applicant obtained alternative employment. Redundancy already paid was not separately increased, but its basic amount supported the notice assessment. The applicant was entitled to additional compensation for...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; contract declared unfair and void from 21 August 1997 except in respect of payments made under or in relation to it; monetary compensation ordered; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The contract of employment between the applicant and respondent is declared unfair and void on and from 21 August 1997 except in respect of payments made thereunder or in relation thereto.' 'The respondent must pay the applicant within 28 days the sum of $32,458, together with interest thereon at the rate or rates...