Helen Hartley v MGICA [2001] NSWIRComm 224

Helen Hartley v MGICA [2001] NSWIRComm 224

The contract or arrangement was unfair within s 106 because the respondent gave the applicant only the option of accepting the relationship manager role or resigning, failed to properly appreciate and consider her reasonable reasons for declining that fundamentally different role, failed to consider a trial period or other redeployment, left uncertainty about whether her total remuneration including bonus would be maintained, and treated her unfairly compared with other employees who received redundancy pay despite continuing in new positions. The unfairness warranted varying the contract to provide redundancy pay under the retrenchment policy and making money orders with interest and costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging an Unfair Contract of Employment / Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application allowed; contract varied; money order, interest and costs ordered for the applicant.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'contract of Employment' 'redundancy' 'reasonable Alternate Role' 'retrenchment Policy' 'costs' 'interest']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'contract of Employment' 'redundancy' 'reasonable Alternate Role' 'retrenchment Policy' 'costs' 'interest']

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 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging an Unfair Contract of Employment / Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's contract of employment or related retrenchment arrangement was unfair, harsh or unconscionable under s 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996." "Whether the relationship manager position offered to the applicant was a reasonable alternate role so as to disentitle her to redundancy pay under the respondent's retrenchment policy." 'Whether the applicant was treated unfairly compared with other employees who received redundancy payments while taking up new roles.' 'Whether the contract should be varied and money orders made for redundancy pay, interest and costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The contract or arrangement was unfair within s 106 because the respondent gave the applicant only the option of accepting the relationship manager role or resigning, failed to properly appreciate and consider her reasonable reasons for declining that fundamentally different role, failed to consider a trial period or other redeployment, left uncertainty about whether her total remuneration including bonus would be maintained, and treated her unfairly compared with other employees who received redundancy pay despite continuing in new positions. The unfairness warranted varying the contract to provide redundancy pay under the retrenchment policy and making money orders with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; contract varied; money order, interest and costs ordered for the applicant.

Orders

  • ['The contract of employment between the applicant and the respondent is varied by inserting a provision, operative as from 1 April 1999, that on termination of the applicant\'s employment upon her position of accounts manager becoming redundant the applicant shall be entitled to redundancy pay calculated in...