Philipson v EASE Furniture [1997] IRCA 19

Philipson v EASE Furniture [1997] IRCA 19

The Court preferred the respondent's evidence that a three month probation period was raised before employment and formed the basis of the engagement. The JobStart Wage Subsidy Agreement post-dated the oral employment contract, concerned Commonwealth wage subsidy arrangements, and did not alter or override the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 January 1997
Procedural Posture
Unlawful Termination Application Under Division 3 of Part VIA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Reasons for Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'probationary Employment' 'employment Contract' 'wage Subsidy Agreement' 'reg 30 B Exclusion']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'probationary Employment' 'employment Contract' 'wage Subsidy Agreement' 'reg 30 B Exclusion']

Source-derived case record

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 Application Under Division 3 of Part VIA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Reasons for Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's employment was terminated contrary to ss170DE and 170DC of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)." 'Whether the applicant was excluded from the operation of the Act under s170CC because he was serving a period of probation within Regulation 30B of the Industrial Relations Regulations.' 'Whether a three month probation period had been determined in advance.' 'Whether the JobStart Wage Subsidy Agreement altered or overrode the earlier agreed probation period.' "Whether a three month probation period was reasonable having regard to the nature and circumstances of the applicant's employment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court preferred the respondent's evidence that a three month probation period was raised before employment and formed the basis of the engagement. The JobStart Wage Subsidy Agreement post-dated the oral employment contract, concerned Commonwealth wage subsidy arrangements, and did not alter or override the agreed probation term. Given the expired Award's three month training period, the small close-knit workplace, and the need to assess attitude, cooperation and suitability, the three month period was reasonable. The applicant was therefore excluded by Reg30B(1)(c), making it unnecessary to consider the alternative defence, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']