Gordon Jung v Tempo Services Ltd [1995] IRCA 321

Gordon Jung v Tempo Services Ltd [1995] IRCA 321

The Respondent failed to accord procedural fairness to the Applicant by neither conducting a reasonable investigation nor putting specific allegations to him prior to the termination. The termination was therefore harsh, unjust and unreasonable under s170DE(2) and breached s170DC. Reinstatement is the proper remedy unless impracticable; as reinstatement to the prior workplace was not feasible, reinstatement to another similar position within reasonable proximity is ordered.

Parties
Applicant: Gordon Jung; Respondent: Tempo Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Applicant successful; termination found to be harsh, unjust and unreasonable. Respondent ordered to reinstate and compensate Applicant.
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Procedural Fairness, Harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Dismissal, Opportunity to Respond, Reinstatement
Industrial Law Termination of Employment Procedural Fairness Harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Dismissal Opportunity to Respond Reinstatement

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Jung

Applicant

Tempo Services Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Pursuant to Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there a valid reason for the termination?
  2. 2 Was the termination harsh, unjust or unreasonable under s170DE(2)?
  3. 3 Was there a breach of section 170DC (procedural fairness)?

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent failed to accord procedural fairness to the Applicant by neither conducting a reasonable investigation nor putting specific allegations to him prior to the termination. The termination was therefore harsh, unjust and unreasonable under s170DE(2) and breached s170DC. Reinstatement is the proper remedy unless impracticable; as reinstatement to the prior workplace was not feasible, reinstatement to another similar position within reasonable proximity is ordered.

Court Disposition

Applicant successful; termination found to be harsh, unjust and unreasonable. Respondent ordered to reinstate and compensate Applicant.

Orders

  • Applicant reinstated by Respondent to site supervisor position (working or non-working) at a site within reasonable proximity to Applicant's residence, effective immediately.
  • Applicant reinstated on same salary, remuneration and conditions as immediately before termination.