Brett Leon McGuire v P A Thomson [1995] IRCA 544

Brett Leon McGuire v P A Thomson [1995] IRCA 544

The respondent contravened S170DE(1) and (2) because the evidence did not establish an operational requirement, reduced work, or lack of alternative work justifying termination; the applicant was terminated only because Mr Hutchins' employment had ended. Daily hire status and building industry hiring practice did not remove statutory or award protections. Reinstatement was impracticable, and compensation of $2,000.00 was reasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 1995
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Reasons for Decision Delivered Ex Tempore, Including Remedy
Outcome
The application succeeded; the termination was found to contravene S170DE(1) and (2), and compensation was ordered.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'daily Hire Employment' 'redundancy' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'compensation']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'daily Hire Employment' 'redundancy' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' '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

Application Pursuant to S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Reasons for Decision Delivered Ex Tempore, Including Remedy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent had a valid reason to terminate the applicant's employment after the termination of Mr Hutchins' employment" 'Whether the termination contravened S170DE(1) and (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988' 'Whether reinstatement or compensation was the appropriate remedy']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent contravened S170DE(1) and (2) because the evidence did not establish an operational requirement, reduced work, or lack of alternative work justifying termination; the applicant was terminated only because Mr Hutchins' employment had ended. Daily hire status and building industry hiring practice did not remove statutory or award protections. Reinstatement was impracticable, and compensation of $2,000.00 was reasonable.

Court Disposition

The application succeeded; the termination was found to contravene S170DE(1) and (2), and compensation was ordered.

Orders

  • ['That the termination of the applicants employment by the respondent contravened S170DE(1) and (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.' 'That the respondent pay to the applicant compensation in the sum of $2,000.00 within 21 days of this order.']