GIBB & AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING WORKERS' UNION v T.E.D. ENGINEERING AUSTRALIA [1997] IRCA 6

GIBB & AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING WORKERS' UNION v T.E.D. ENGINEERING AUSTRALIA [1997] IRCA 6

The additional proposed damages claims were not permitted to proceed with the unlawful termination application because the applicants had not acted with due diligence, the claims would prejudice the respondent and require adjournment, the overtime claim was not shown to arise from a common substratum of facts within accrued jurisdiction, and the second contractual discrimination claim did not need to be determined. On the termination application, the respondent proved that the first applicant's position was abolished for bona fide operational reasons due to reduced press shop work and intermittent maintenance needs, that maintenance work was contracted out, that no appropriate alternative...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 January 1997
Procedural Posture
Unlawful Termination Application and Notice of Motion for Leave to Proceed With Damages Claim in Accrued Jurisdiction / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'redundancy' 'valid Reason' 'union Membership and Activities Discrimination' 'accrued Jurisdiction' 'alternative Employment']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'redundancy' 'valid Reason' 'union Membership and Activities Discrimination' 'accrued Jurisdiction' 'alternative Employment']

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

Unlawful Termination Application and Notice of Motion for Leave to Proceed With Damages Claim in Accrued Jurisdiction / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was just or convenient for the Court to deal with additional damages claims in a proposed statement of claim at the same time as the unlawful termination application.' "Whether the termination of the first applicant's employment was for a valid reason based on redundancy and the respondent's operational requirements." "Whether the respondent terminated the first applicant's employment for reasons including union membership, participation in union activities, or acting as an employee representative contrary to section 170DF(1)(b) and (d) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996." 'Whether failure to consider or offer alternative employment was relevant to whether there was a valid reason for termination.']

Ratio Decidendi

The additional proposed damages claims were not permitted to proceed with the unlawful termination application because the applicants had not acted with due diligence, the claims would prejudice the respondent and require adjournment, the overtime claim was not shown to arise from a common substratum of facts within accrued jurisdiction, and the second contractual discrimination claim did not need to be determined. On the termination application, the respondent proved that the first applicant's position was abolished for bona fide operational reasons due to reduced press shop work and intermittent maintenance needs, that maintenance work was contracted out, that no appropriate alternative...

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The applications of the applicants are dismissed.']