Dennis Andison v Woolworths Limited [1995] IRCA 205

Dennis Andison v Woolworths Limited [1995] IRCA 205

The applicant was engaged by Woolworths on a regular and systematic basis for a sequence of periods extending from 25 May 1994 to 7 December 1994 and, but for termination, would have had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment. Regulation 30B therefore did not exclude him. Woolworths had no valid reason for termination and contravened section 170DC by failing to act on the applicant's request for a round table conference or otherwise afford him a proper opportunity to defend himself. Reinstatement was impracticable, so compensation was ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Concerning Termination of Employment / Final Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application upheld in part; contraventions declared, reinstatement refused as impracticable, and compensation ordered.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'casual Employment' 'unfair Dismissal' 'reinstatement' 'compensation' 'regular and Systematic Engagement']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'casual Employment' 'unfair Dismissal' 'reinstatement' 'compensation' 'regular and Systematic Engagement']

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 Under Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Concerning Termination of Employment / Final Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was excluded from relief by Regulation 30B of the Industrial Relations Regulations as a casual employee engaged for a short period.' "Whether the respondent had a valid reason for terminating the applicant's employment." 'Whether the respondent afforded the applicant a proper opportunity to respond to allegations or discuss the termination.' 'Whether reinstatement was practicable.' 'What compensation should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was engaged by Woolworths on a regular and systematic basis for a sequence of periods extending from 25 May 1994 to 7 December 1994 and, but for termination, would have had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment. Regulation 30B therefore did not exclude him. Woolworths had no valid reason for termination and contravened section 170DC by failing to act on the applicant's request for a round table conference or otherwise afford him a proper opportunity to defend himself. Reinstatement was impracticable, so compensation was ordered.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in part; contraventions declared, reinstatement refused as impracticable, and compensation ordered.

Orders

  • ['Declared that the company contravened section 170DC of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and section 170DE(1) of that Act.' 'Found that it was impracticable to reinstate Mr Andison to his former position or to another position in the company.' 'Ordered that the employer pay compensation in the amount of $2500 to...