Schleiger v Vicmill Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 171

Schleiger v Vicmill Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 171

The termination was at the initiative of the Respondent and was for a valid reason connected with the Applicant's capacity and conduct, because the Applicant failed to follow earlier directions not to order sulphate of ammonia from Port Kembla and had been warned or counselled about unsatisfactory performance. However, the Respondent failed to give the Applicant an adequate opportunity to respond before termination, breaching S170DC and making the termination unreasonable under S170DE(2). No reinstatement or compensation was appropriate because reinstatement was impractical and not sought, and the Applicant's conduct and performance meant she had no real likelihood of retaining her...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Unlawful Termination of Employment Claim / Reasons for Judgment and Declaration After Hearing
Outcome
Declaration made that the termination was for a valid reason but breached S170DC and S170DE(2); no reinstatement or compensation ordered.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'valid Reason Connected With Capacity and Conduct' 'opportunity to Respond' 'warnings for Unsatisfactory Performance' 'reinstatement' 'compensation']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'valid Reason Connected With Capacity and Conduct' 'opportunity to Respond' 'warnings for Unsatisfactory Performance' '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

Unlawful Termination of Employment Claim / Reasons for Judgment and Declaration After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the termination of the Applicant's employment was at the initiative of the employer or amounted to abandonment of employment." "Whether there was a valid reason for termination connected with the Applicant's capacity or conduct." 'Whether the Respondent breached S170DC by failing to give the Applicant an adequate opportunity to respond before termination.' 'Whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable under S170DE(2).' 'Whether reinstatement or compensation should be ordered under S170EE(1)(a) or S170EE(2).']

Ratio Decidendi

The termination was at the initiative of the Respondent and was for a valid reason connected with the Applicant's capacity and conduct, because the Applicant failed to follow earlier directions not to order sulphate of ammonia from Port Kembla and had been warned or counselled about unsatisfactory performance. However, the Respondent failed to give the Applicant an adequate opportunity to respond before termination, breaching S170DC and making the termination unreasonable under S170DE(2). No reinstatement or compensation was appropriate because reinstatement was impractical and not sought, and the Applicant's conduct and performance meant she had no real likelihood of retaining her...

Court Disposition

Declaration made that the termination was for a valid reason but breached S170DC and S170DE(2); no reinstatement or compensation ordered.

Orders

  • ["The termination of the Applicant's employment advised by the Respondent on 8 April 1995 and effected on 10 April 1995 was for valid reason connected with the Applicant's capacity and conduct." 'The termination was a breach of S170DC and S170DE(2).' 'In all the circumstances of the case it was inappropriate to make...