John Steedman v Hasol Australia [1995] IRCA 681

John Steedman v Hasol Australia [1995] IRCA 681

The termination contravened Section 170DE because Jasol did not establish a valid reason for dismissal: the liquid removed by Mr Steedman was rejected detergent of no commercial value, the policy on removal of 'product' was not construed as applying to rubbish, and the Court was not satisfied that moving it from the factory to his van breached the written policy. The dismissal was also harsh, unjust and unreasonable because dismissal for material worth at most $4.50, or worthless, was disproportionate, Jasol failed to exercise available discretion, and the policy was applied selectively. Reinstatement was not impracticable because the Court did not accept that any loss of confidence or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Alleging Unlawful Termination of Employment / Reasons for Judgment and Minute of Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed; termination declared to have contravened Section 170DE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and reinstatement ordered.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'valid Reason' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'procedural Fairness' 'reinstatement' 'remuneration Lost']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'valid Reason' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'procedural Fairness' 'reinstatement' 'remuneration Lost']

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 Under Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Alleging Unlawful Termination of Employment / Reasons for Judgment and Minute of Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the termination of Mr Steedman's employment was for a valid reason related to his conduct." "Whether Mr Steedman's removal of rejected laundry liquid breached Jasol's policy on removal of product from its complex." 'Whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of Section 170DE(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.' 'Whether Mr Steedman was given an opportunity to defend himself against allegations related to his conduct.' 'Whether reinstatement was impracticable under Section 170EE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.']

Ratio Decidendi

The termination contravened Section 170DE because Jasol did not establish a valid reason for dismissal: the liquid removed by Mr Steedman was rejected detergent of no commercial value, the policy on removal of 'product' was not construed as applying to rubbish, and the Court was not satisfied that moving it from the factory to his van breached the written policy. The dismissal was also harsh, unjust and unreasonable because dismissal for material worth at most $4.50, or worthless, was disproportionate, Jasol failed to exercise available discretion, and the policy was applied selectively. Reinstatement was not impracticable because the Court did not accept that any loss of confidence or...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; termination declared to have contravened Section 170DE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and reinstatement ordered.

Orders

  • ['The termination of the Applicant by the respondent contravened Section 170DE of the Act.' 'The respondent shall appoint the applicant to the position in which he was employed immediately before the termination.' 'The employment of the applicant is deemed to have been continued for all purposes from the date of the...