Pritchard v Trident Global Pty Limited [2006] NSWIRComm 1124

Pritchard v Trident Global Pty Limited [2006] NSWIRComm 1124

The Commission allowed only those parts of the challenged affidavits containing direct evidence and struck out parts referring to matters dealt with by Mr Rossi. It found the applicant's employment was continuous, so the maximum probationary period was not determined in advance as required by the regulations. It also found the applicant was substantially employed away from the employer's Sydney place of business soliciting or promoting sales and that software could fall within 'wares', so he was award-covered. If remuneration had been necessary, the issue would have been determined in the applicant's favour. On the merits, however, the applicant had not achieved any sales, had been on...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Re Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Arbitration Hearing and Decision After Failed Conciliation and Threshold Objections
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'probationary Employment' 'award Coverage' 'commercial Travellers (state) Award' 'annual Remuneration Statutory Limit' 'defective Affidavits' 'procedural Fairness' 'performance Dismissal']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'probationary Employment' 'award Coverage' 'commercial Travellers (state) Award' 'annual Remuneration Statutory Limit' 'defective Affidavits' 'procedural Fairness' 'performance Dismissal']

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 Re Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Arbitration Hearing and Decision After Failed Conciliation and Threshold Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether parts of the respondent witnesses' affidavits should be disallowed because the witnesses had read and adopted parts of another witness's affidavit." 'Whether the applicant was serving an exempt probationary or qualifying period at dismissal and whether the maximum duration of that period was determined in advance.' 'Whether the applicant was an award employee under the Commercial Travellers (State) Award.' 'If the applicant was not an award employee, whether his annual remuneration exceeded the prescribed statutory limit.' "Whether the applicant's dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable." 'What remedy, if any, should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission allowed only those parts of the challenged affidavits containing direct evidence and struck out parts referring to matters dealt with by Mr Rossi. It found the applicant's employment was continuous, so the maximum probationary period was not determined in advance as required by the regulations. It also found the applicant was substantially employed away from the employer's Sydney place of business soliciting or promoting sales and that software could fall within 'wares', so he was award-covered. If remuneration had been necessary, the issue would have been determined in the applicant's favour. On the merits, however, the applicant had not achieved any sales, had been on...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Matter No. IRC 6269 of 2005 is hereby dismissed.']