Schafer v Coleiro [1996] IRCA 494

Schafer v Coleiro [1996] IRCA 494

The respondent failed to meet the onus of proving a valid reason for termination, and the reason given to the first-named applicant was not sound, defensible or well founded. The evidence also showed that the applicant was not afforded a real opportunity to explain any alleged conduct. The termination therefore contravened sections 170DE(1) and 170DC of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, reinstatement was impracticable because the respondent no longer operated the centre, and compensation and damages were ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Alleging Unlawful Termination of Employment Under Division III Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Hearing and Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment; No Appearance for Respondent
Outcome
Application successful in part; declaration of contravention and orders for damages and compensation made.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'valid Reason for Termination' 'onus of Proof' 'opportunity to Explain Alleged Conduct' 'prohibited Reason for Termination' 'compensation and Damages']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'valid Reason for Termination' 'onus of Proof' 'opportunity to Explain Alleged Conduct' 'prohibited Reason for Termination' 'compensation and Damages']

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 Alleging Unlawful Termination of Employment Under Division III Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Hearing and Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment; No Appearance for Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the termination of the first-named applicant's employment contravened Division III Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988." "Whether the respondent had a valid reason for terminating the first-named applicant's employment." 'Whether the first-named applicant was afforded a real opportunity to explain any conduct alleged against her.' 'Whether a claim under section 170DF(1)(f) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 based on age could be dealt with where notification to the employer was not established.' 'Whether reinstatement was impracticable and compensation should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to meet the onus of proving a valid reason for termination, and the reason given to the first-named applicant was not sound, defensible or well founded. The evidence also showed that the applicant was not afforded a real opportunity to explain any alleged conduct. The termination therefore contravened sections 170DE(1) and 170DC of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, reinstatement was impracticable because the respondent no longer operated the centre, and compensation and damages were ordered.

Court Disposition

Application successful in part; declaration of contravention and orders for damages and compensation made.

Orders

  • ["The Court declares that the termination of the first-named applicant's employment by the respondent on 8 August 1995 contravened Division III Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988." 'Within 21 days of the date of making the orders, the respondent pay to the applicant damages in the sum of $334.95.' 'Within...