HEALD & FSU -V- GIO AUSTRALIA [1997] IRCA 191

HEALD & FSU -V- GIO AUSTRALIA [1997] IRCA 191

The respondent established a valid reason for termination because the applicant's poor performance in the redeployed registry position was repeatedly identified, discussed and monitored; the applicant was trained, counselled and warned that termination may result; no evidence showed the duties were outside the relevant classification or that redeployment to the position was unreasonable; no evidence established an available alternative role or applicable industry standard requiring a different approach; and the applicant had an adequate opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, there was no contravention of s170DE(1) or s170DC of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 1997
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to Section 170 EA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 Alleging Unlawful Termination / Reasons for Decision and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'valid Reason' 'company Restructure' 'operational Requirement' 'redeployment' 'work Performance' 'opportunity to Respond']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'valid Reason' 'company Restructure' 'operational Requirement' 'redeployment' 'work Performance' 'opportunity to Respond']

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 Section 170 EA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 Alleging Unlawful Termination / Reasons for Decision and Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent had a valid reason for terminating the applicant's employment following redeployment to a new position." 'Whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, including whether it was capricious in the circumstances of a recent redeployee.' "Whether the respondent should have arranged an alternative position instead of terminating the applicant's employment." 'Whether the applicant was given an adequate opportunity to respond to allegations about his work performance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent established a valid reason for termination because the applicant's poor performance in the redeployed registry position was repeatedly identified, discussed and monitored; the applicant was trained, counselled and warned that termination may result; no evidence showed the duties were outside the relevant classification or that redeployment to the position was unreasonable; no evidence established an available alternative role or applicable industry standard requiring a different approach; and the applicant had an adequate opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, there was no contravention of s170DE(1) or s170DC of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application made pursuant to Section 170EA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 be dismissed.']