Elliott v Kodak Australasia Pty Ltd (ACN 004 057 621) [2002] FCA 154

Elliott v Kodak Australasia Pty Ltd (ACN 004 057 621) [2002] FCA 154

On reconsideration of the applicants' evidence, the Court accepted Kodak's witnesses as truthful and reliable and found that the redundancy ranking was bona fide. The matters relied on by the applicants did not show that Kodak took Mr Elliott's union delegate status into account; rather, Kodak considered his conduct, demeanour, conflicts and teamwork issues as an employee. Kodak discharged its onus under s 298V of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), so the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Alleging Redundancy for a Prohibited Reason / Reconsideration by Trial Judge After Full Court Partially Upheld Appeal and Referred the Matter Back
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['redundancy Selection' 'union Delegate Activity' 'prohibited Reason' 'reverse Onus Under S 298 V' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['redundancy Selection' 'union Delegate Activity' 'prohibited Reason' 'reverse Onus Under S 298 V' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth)']

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

Industrial Law Application Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Alleging Redundancy for a Prohibited Reason / Reconsideration by Trial Judge After Full Court Partially Upheld Appeal and Referred the Matter Back

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, after reconsideration of the applicants' evidence, Kodak's decision-makers made Mr Elliott redundant for reasons that included that he was a delegate of a trade union." "Whether the applicants' evidence discredited Kodak's evidence about the reasons for Mr Elliott's redundancy ranking." 'Whether Kodak discharged its onus under s 298V of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

On reconsideration of the applicants' evidence, the Court accepted Kodak's witnesses as truthful and reliable and found that the redundancy ranking was bona fide. The matters relied on by the applicants did not show that Kodak took Mr Elliott's union delegate status into account; rather, Kodak considered his conduct, demeanour, conflicts and teamwork issues as an employee. Kodak discharged its onus under s 298V of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), so the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.']