Douglas Maynard v Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre Inc [1995] IRCA 589

Douglas Maynard v Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre Inc [1995] IRCA 589

The termination was harsh, unjust and unreasonable because the Administrator relied at least in part on complaints about the applicant's alleged public criticism and inability to work as part of the TAC team without clear prior notice, counselling, warning or a reasonable opportunity to respond, and because the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Claim of Unlawful Termination of Employment / Reasons for Judgment and Order on Remedy
Outcome
Termination found harsh, unjust and unreasonable; reinstatement refused as impracticable; compensation awarded to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'probation' 'non Compliance With Written Direction' 'failure to Attend Seminar' 'public Criticism of Employer' 'reinstatement' 'compensation' 'likely Duration of Employment']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'probation' 'non Compliance With Written Direction' 'failure to Attend Seminar' 'public Criticism of Employer' 'reinstatement' 'compensation' 'likely Duration of Employment']

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

Claim of Unlawful Termination of Employment / Reasons for Judgment and Order on Remedy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had jurisdiction or the applicant was excluded because he was serving a probationary period determined in advance and of reasonable duration.' 'Whether termination based on failure to comply with the written direction to attend the Rutherglen seminar was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.' 'Whether termination based on alleged inability to work as part of the TAC team was harsh, unjust or unreasonable where complaints had not been clearly put to the applicant before termination.' 'Whether reinstatement was practicable.' 'What compensation was appropriate having regard to the likely duration of continued employment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The termination was harsh, unjust and unreasonable because the Administrator relied at least in part on complaints about the applicant's alleged public criticism and inability to work as part of the TAC team without clear prior notice, counselling, warning or a reasonable opportunity to respond, and because the applicant was given little and unreasonable opportunity to justify non-attendance at the seminar before dismissal. The probation exclusion did not apply. Reinstatement was impracticable due to the applicant's attitude to TAC and likely impact on workplace harmony, so compensation reflecting about 12 weeks wages was ordered.

Court Disposition

Termination found harsh, unjust and unreasonable; reinstatement refused as impracticable; compensation awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • ['The respondent pay the applicant compensation in the sum of $5,600 within 21 days.']