Janet Lorraine Bullock v Mayne Nickless Limited [1996] IRCA 81

Janet Lorraine Bullock v Mayne Nickless Limited [1996] IRCA 81

The respondent had a genuine, logical and defensible operational reason for redundancy because the Transport Group had excess secretarial capacity and no available alternative positions, so s170DE(1) was satisfied. However, the termination breached s170DE(2) because the applicant was not consulted, was denied an opportunity to explore alternatives or respond to the selection criteria, and the criteria applied operated unfairly against her. Reinstatement was impracticable, so compensation was ordered for the lost opportunity to retain employment or leave on her own terms.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Unfair Termination Redundancy Proceeding Under Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Reasons for Judgment and Minutes of Orders After Hearing
Outcome
The applicant succeeded on the ground that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; reinstatement was impracticable and compensation was awarded.
Legal Topics
['unfair Termination' 'redundancy' 'valid Reason' 'operational Requirements' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'consultation' 'selection Criteria' 'compensation']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Termination' 'redundancy' 'valid Reason' 'operational Requirements' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'consultation' 'selection Criteria' 'compensation']

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 Unfair Termination Redundancy Proceeding Under Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Reasons for Judgment and Minutes of Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent had a valid reason based on operational requirements to terminate the applicant's employment." 'Whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable because of failure to consult and failure to apply proper selection criteria.' 'Whether reinstatement was impracticable and, if so, what compensation should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent had a genuine, logical and defensible operational reason for redundancy because the Transport Group had excess secretarial capacity and no available alternative positions, so s170DE(1) was satisfied. However, the termination breached s170DE(2) because the applicant was not consulted, was denied an opportunity to explore alternatives or respond to the selection criteria, and the criteria applied operated unfairly against her. Reinstatement was impracticable, so compensation was ordered for the lost opportunity to retain employment or leave on her own terms.

Court Disposition

The applicant succeeded on the ground that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; reinstatement was impracticable and compensation was awarded.

Orders

  • ['That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $6,500 within 21 days.']