Ellis v Saks Design Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 360

Ellis v Saks Design Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 360

The applicant was an employee of the respondent from the commencement of work on 30 November 1994 because the respondent exercised day-to-day control, fixed her hours and place of work, paid her weekly, and she bore no business risk or responsibility for equipment, premises or labour. The termination occurred at the initiative of the respondent because the respondent convened the meeting and raised the cessation of employment, and the separation certificate recorded termination for unsatisfactory work performance. The respondent had no valid reason for termination, contravened s170DE(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, and, because reinstatement was impracticable and the applicant's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Alleging Unlawful Termination / Reasons for Decision and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed; the respondent was ordered to pay compensation to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'employee or Independent Contractor' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'valid Reason' 'compensation']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'employee or Independent Contractor' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'valid Reason' 'compensation']

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 Pursuant to S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Alleging Unlawful Termination / Reasons for Decision and Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was an employee of the respondent or an independent contractor at the time of termination.' "Whether the applicant's employment was terminated at the initiative of the employer." "Whether the respondent had a valid reason for terminating the applicant's employment related to conduct or performance." 'Whether reinstatement was impracticable and what compensation should be awarded.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was an employee of the respondent from the commencement of work on 30 November 1994 because the respondent exercised day-to-day control, fixed her hours and place of work, paid her weekly, and she bore no business risk or responsibility for equipment, premises or labour. The termination occurred at the initiative of the respondent because the respondent convened the meeting and raised the cessation of employment, and the separation certificate recorded termination for unsatisfactory work performance. The respondent had no valid reason for termination, contravened s170DE(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, and, because reinstatement was impracticable and the applicant's...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; the respondent was ordered to pay compensation to the applicant.

Orders

  • ['The respondent pay to the applicant compensation in the sum of $4,147.20.' 'Time for payment is twenty one days from the date of order.']