Jones v Making Waves Design Pty Ltd [2005] NSWIRComm 1020

Jones v Making Waves Design Pty Ltd [2005] NSWIRComm 1020

The Commission found that the applicant's employment ended by genuine redundancy caused by a downturn in the respondent's production work. The applicant had notice of the impending redundancy, discussions and negotiations about future contractor engagement had occurred, she chose 31 May 2004 as the termination date, and the respondent offered a redundancy-related payment that was not unreasonable given its small-company circumstances. The claims that the applicant abandoned her employment or resigned voluntarily were rejected, but the dismissal was not harsh, unreasonable or unjust, either substantially or procedurally.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Hearing After Conciliation Was Not Resolved; Decision on the Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'termination of Employment' 'genuine Redundancy' 'contractor Engagement' 'procedural Fairness' 'severance Payment']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'termination of Employment' 'genuine Redundancy' 'contractor Engagement' 'procedural Fairness' 'severance Payment']

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 for Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Hearing After Conciliation Was Not Resolved; Decision on the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was dismissed or abandoned her employment/resigned voluntarily on 31 May 2004.' 'Whether the termination was a genuine redundancy arising from a downturn in production work.' 'Whether the dismissal was harsh, unreasonable or unjust, either substantially or procedurally.' 'Whether the proposed engagement of the applicant as a contractor constituted alternative employment.' 'Whether the redundancy payment offered was unreasonable in the circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission found that the applicant's employment ended by genuine redundancy caused by a downturn in the respondent's production work. The applicant had notice of the impending redundancy, discussions and negotiations about future contractor engagement had occurred, she chose 31 May 2004 as the termination date, and the respondent offered a redundancy-related payment that was not unreasonable given its small-company circumstances. The claims that the applicant abandoned her employment or resigned voluntarily were rejected, but the dismissal was not harsh, unreasonable or unjust, either substantially or procedurally.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']