Joseph Peter Atkinson v Brickshaw Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 113

Joseph Peter Atkinson v Brickshaw Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 113

On the totality of the relationship, the applicant was an employee of Brickshaw Pty Ltd, not a sub-contractor: he worked only for the respondent for about a year, was subject to Michael Shaw's orders and directions, and tax deductions were taken from his salary. The respondent terminated the relationship because the applicant lodged a Work Cover claim. That termination breached S170DB, S170DC and S170DE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, was unjust, harsh and unreasonable, and warranted compensation under S170EE. Reinstatement was impracticable and was not sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Compensation for Unlawful Termination of Employment / Undefended Hearing After Unsuccessful Conciliation; Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application allowed; compensation ordered for the applicant.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'contract of Service or Contract for Services' 'employee or Independent Contractor' 'termination After Work Cover Claim' 'compensation']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'contract of Service or Contract for Services' 'employee or Independent Contractor' 'termination After Work Cover Claim' '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

Application for Compensation for Unlawful Termination of Employment / Undefended Hearing After Unsuccessful Conciliation; Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was an employee of the respondent or a sub-contractor.' "Whether the respondent terminated the applicant's employment because he lodged a Work Cover claim." 'Whether the termination breached S170DB, S170DC and S170DE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.' 'Whether compensation should be ordered instead of reinstatement.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the relationship, the applicant was an employee of Brickshaw Pty Ltd, not a sub-contractor: he worked only for the respondent for about a year, was subject to Michael Shaw's orders and directions, and tax deductions were taken from his salary. The respondent terminated the relationship because the applicant lodged a Work Cover claim. That termination breached S170DB, S170DC and S170DE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, was unjust, harsh and unreasonable, and warranted compensation under S170EE. Reinstatement was impracticable and was not sought.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; compensation ordered for the applicant.

Orders

  • ['The respondent pay to the applicant compensation in the sum of $4,000.' 'The Registrar draw up, sign and seal an order to that effect.']