SKELE v KITCHENER MINING NL [1997] IRCA 75

SKELE v KITCHENER MINING NL [1997] IRCA 75

Ms Skele was not engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period of time because, although the renewal stated commencement and cessation dates, the cessation date merely recorded the outer limit beyond which the contract would not run and Ms Skele could terminate the contract at any point during the three-month period. The contract was therefore not sufficiently different from Andersen to be characterised as a specified-period contract, and Regulation 30B1(aa) did not exclude her from the relevant statutory provisions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 1997
Procedural Posture
Application Seeking Payment of Compensation Arising Out of Alleged Termination of Employment / Threshold Jurisdiction Question Determined Before Proceeding Further With the Matter
Outcome
Threshold jurisdiction issue determined in favour of the applicant; Ms Skele was declared not to be an excluded employee under Regulation 30B1(aa), and the matter was set down for telephone directions.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'contract of Employment for a Specified Period of Time' 'excluded Employees' 'jurisdiction Under Workplace Relations Legislation']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'contract of Employment for a Specified Period of Time' 'excluded Employees' 'jurisdiction Under Workplace Relations Legislation']

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 Seeking Payment of Compensation Arising Out of Alleged Termination of Employment / Threshold Jurisdiction Question Determined Before Proceeding Further With the Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Ms Skele was an employee engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period of time within the meaning of Regulation 30B1(aa).' 'Whether Regulation 30B1(aa) excluded Ms Skele from the operation of subdivisions B, C, D and E of Division 3 of Part VIA of the Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Skele was not engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period of time because, although the renewal stated commencement and cessation dates, the cessation date merely recorded the outer limit beyond which the contract would not run and Ms Skele could terminate the contract at any point during the three-month period. The contract was therefore not sufficiently different from Andersen to be characterised as a specified-period contract, and Regulation 30B1(aa) did not exclude her from the relevant statutory provisions.

Court Disposition

Threshold jurisdiction issue determined in favour of the applicant; Ms Skele was declared not to be an excluded employee under Regulation 30B1(aa), and the matter was set down for telephone directions.

Orders

  • ['Ms Skele was not an employee engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period of time within the meaning of Regulation 30B1(aa).' 'The matter be set down for telephone directions at 10:30 am on Friday, 7 March 1997.']