Diprose v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd & Anderson v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd & Ries v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd & Buckles v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd & Arnold v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd & Harding v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd [1997] IRCA 284

Diprose v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd & Anderson v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd & Ries v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd & Buckles v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd & Arnold v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd & Harding v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd [1997] IRCA 284

The respondent's failure to comply with s170DC and to afford procedural fairness deprived each applicant only of a chance, not a certainty, of avoiding retrenchment. Because at least four and probably all six applicants would have been made redundant by the end of 1996 had the respondent acted regularly, and no applicant had a realistic chance of retention above 20%, compensation was assessed generally by reference to about three months' continued employment at the applicable rates, with some consideration of redundancy payments. No additional compensation for shock and distress was awarded because there was no evidence of shock and distress and compensation for economic loss was already...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Proceeding Concerning Termination of Employment and Compensation Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 / Reasons for Judgment on Compensation and Final Orders After Declaration That the Terminations Were Unlawful and Reinstatement Was Impracticable
Outcome
Compensation ordered for each applicant; additional compensation for shock and distress refused.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'redundancy' 'outsourcing' 'operational Requirements' 'consultation Obligations' 'compensation' 'reinstatement Impracticability' 'shock and Distress']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law' 'workplace Relations'] ['termination of Employment' 'redundancy' 'outsourcing' 'operational Requirements' 'consultation Obligations' 'compensation' 'reinstatement Impracticability' 'shock and Distress']

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

Industrial Law Proceeding Concerning Termination of Employment and Compensation Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 / Reasons for Judgment on Compensation and Final Orders After Declaration That the Terminations Were Unlawful and Reinstatement Was Impracticable

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What compensation should be ordered under s170EE after unlawful terminations in breach of s170DC and s170DE(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.' 'Whether redundancy payments should be ignored or taken into account in assessing compensation.' "How to value each applicant's lost chance of avoiding retrenchment if the respondent had complied with statutory procedure and afforded procedural fairness." 'Whether additional compensation should be awarded for shock and distress.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's failure to comply with s170DC and to afford procedural fairness deprived each applicant only of a chance, not a certainty, of avoiding retrenchment. Because at least four and probably all six applicants would have been made redundant by the end of 1996 had the respondent acted regularly, and no applicant had a realistic chance of retention above 20%, compensation was assessed generally by reference to about three months' continued employment at the applicable rates, with some consideration of redundancy payments. No additional compensation for shock and distress was awarded because there was no evidence of shock and distress and compensation for economic loss was already...

Court Disposition

Compensation ordered for each applicant; additional compensation for shock and distress refused.

Orders

  • ['The respondent pay the applicant Gregory Rex Diprose compensation in the sum of $20,438.' 'The respondent pay the applicant Gregory Neil Anderson compensation in the sum of $12,236.' 'The respondent pay the applicant Darryl Lance Ries compensation in the sum of $14,905.' 'The respondent pay the applicant David Ian...