Cornwill v Rockwell T Security Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 517

Cornwill v Rockwell T Security Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 517

Although the written contract described the applicant as a contractor, the respondent's statutory declaration for licensing represented that the applicant would be employed, the provisional licence precluded delegation, the respondent retained and exercised significant control through rosters, supervision, instructions, uniforms, log books and dismissal rules, and the applicant worked regular long rostered hours inconsistent with pursuing other work. The applicant was therefore an employee. The respondent removed him from rosters and decided to terminate his work without giving him a full opportunity to explain the final shift, and no valid reason was proved, so the termination...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Concerning Termination of Employment Under Division III Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Declarations made that the applicant was employed by the respondent and that the respondent terminated his employment in contravention of Division III Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988; reinstatement and lost remuneration ordered.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'contract of Service or Contract for Services' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'reinstatement' 'lost Remuneration']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'contract of Service or Contract for Services' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' '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 Concerning Termination of Employment Under Division III Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was engaged under a contract of service or a contract for services.' "Whether the respondent terminated the applicant's employment at its initiative." 'Whether the termination contravened Division III Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, including section 170DC.' 'Whether reinstatement and remuneration lost should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the written contract described the applicant as a contractor, the respondent's statutory declaration for licensing represented that the applicant would be employed, the provisional licence precluded delegation, the respondent retained and exercised significant control through rosters, supervision, instructions, uniforms, log books and dismissal rules, and the applicant worked regular long rostered hours inconsistent with pursuing other work. The applicant was therefore an employee. The respondent removed him from rosters and decided to terminate his work without giving him a full opportunity to explain the final shift, and no valid reason was proved, so the termination...

Court Disposition

Declarations made that the applicant was employed by the respondent and that the respondent terminated his employment in contravention of Division III Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988; reinstatement and lost remuneration ordered.

Orders

  • ['On 3 November 1995, the date of termination, the applicant was employed by the respondent.' "On 3 November 1995 the respondent terminated the applicant's employment in contravention of Division III Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988." 'Within 21 days of the date of making these orders, the respondent...