Stevenson v. Dodd [2005] NSWIRComm 1222

Stevenson v. Dodd [2005] NSWIRComm 1222

The applicant established that his dismissal was unfair because, after eight years of apparently satisfactory employment, he was dismissed by mobile telephone without prior warning and without any real reason being given. The respondent was aware of the hearing but did not appear, and the applicant discharged the onus despite the ex parte hearing. Reinstatement was not appropriate because the respondent was no longer trading and there was no job to return to, so monetary compensation was ordered within the statutory limit, taking account of the applicant's average weekly remuneration and his alternative employment obtained five weeks after dismissal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.84 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996 Alleging Unfair Dismissal / Ex Parte Arbitration Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Application upheld; dismissal found unfair and compensation ordered.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'termination of Employment' 'ex Parte Proceedings' 'failure to Give Reasons for Dismissal' 'compensation for Dismissal' 'employer Ceasing to Trade']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'termination of Employment' 'ex Parte Proceedings' 'failure to Give Reasons for Dismissal' 'compensation for Dismissal' 'employer Ceasing to Trade']

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 Under S.84 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996 Alleging Unfair Dismissal / Ex Parte Arbitration Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commission should proceed ex parte in the absence of the respondent.' 'Whether the applicant discharged the onus of establishing that his dismissal was harsh, unreasonable or unjust.' 'Whether the failure to give reasons or prior warning made the dismissal unfair.' 'Whether reinstatement or monetary compensation was the appropriate remedy.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established that his dismissal was unfair because, after eight years of apparently satisfactory employment, he was dismissed by mobile telephone without prior warning and without any real reason being given. The respondent was aware of the hearing but did not appear, and the applicant discharged the onus despite the ex parte hearing. Reinstatement was not appropriate because the respondent was no longer trading and there was no job to return to, so monetary compensation was ordered within the statutory limit, taking account of the applicant's average weekly remuneration and his alternative employment obtained five weeks after dismissal.

Court Disposition

Application upheld; dismissal found unfair and compensation ordered.

Orders

  • ['Mr Neil Dodd shall pay the sum of $5,500.00 to Mr Graeme Stevenson within 21 days.' 'This order shall take effect on and from Friday, 9 December, 2005.']