HARDIE -V- STARCON PTY LTD [1997] IRCA 188

HARDIE -V- STARCON PTY LTD [1997] IRCA 188

The Court found on balance that a three month probationary or trial period was established and notified in advance of the applicant's employment, that no relevant distinction arose between the trial period relied on by the respondent and a probationary qualifying period under Regulation 30B(1)(c), and that the three month period was reasonable given the new and untried position, uncertainty about its scope and viability, and the lead time required to assess performance and viability. Regulation 30B(1)(c) therefore precluded the Court from exercising jurisdiction over the Section 170EA application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 1997
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to Section 170 EA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 Alleging Unlawful Termination / Preliminary Jurisdiction Question
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction by operation of Regulation 30B(1)(c).
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'probationary Period' 'trial Period' 'jurisdiction' 'workplace Relations Regulation 30 B(1)(c)']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'probationary Period' 'trial Period' 'jurisdiction' 'workplace Relations Regulation 30 B(1)(c)']

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 / Preliminary Jurisdiction Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was engaged on a probationary or trial period determined in advance of the employment.' 'Whether a relevant distinction should be drawn between a trial period and a probationary qualifying period of employment for the purposes of Regulation 30B(1)(c).' 'Whether the three month probationary or trial period was reasonable having regard to the nature and circumstances of the employment.' 'Whether Regulation 30B(1)(c) precluded the Court from hearing and determining the Section 170EA application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found on balance that a three month probationary or trial period was established and notified in advance of the applicant's employment, that no relevant distinction arose between the trial period relied on by the respondent and a probationary qualifying period under Regulation 30B(1)(c), and that the three month period was reasonable given the new and untried position, uncertainty about its scope and viability, and the lead time required to assess performance and viability. Regulation 30B(1)(c) therefore precluded the Court from exercising jurisdiction over the Section 170EA application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction by operation of Regulation 30B(1)(c).

Orders

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