Malcolm Jones v AWU-FINE Amalgamated Union [1995] IRCA 67

Malcolm Jones v AWU-FINE Amalgamated Union [1995] IRCA 67

The applicant's relevant wages fell within the Court's jurisdiction because the motor vehicle and relevant employer superannuation payments were not included as wages. The respondent contravened Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 because notice compensation was not paid at the time of termination and because, despite the respondent's poor financial position and operational requirements, the applicant was denied procedural fairness. Compensation was limited because the respondent later rectified the notice payment and had already made substantial severance payments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaration, Reinstatement and Compensation for Alleged Contravention of Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Arising From Termination of Employment / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The Court declared that the termination contravened Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $4,000, with a 21 day stay.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'redundancy' 'jurisdictional Wage Threshold' 'relevant Wages' 'notice of Termination' 'procedural Fairness' 'compensation']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'redundancy' 'jurisdictional Wage Threshold' 'relevant Wages' 'notice of Termination' 'procedural Fairness' '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 Declaration, Reinstatement and Compensation for Alleged Contravention of Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Arising From Termination of Employment / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's relevant wages exceeded the applicable amount of $60,000 under s 170CD of the Industrial Relations Act 1988." 'Whether non-pecuniary benefits, motor vehicle use and employer superannuation payments should be included in relevant wages.' 'Whether the respondent breached the notice requirements in s 170DB of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.' 'Whether the termination was for a valid reason connected with operational requirements and was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable under s 170DE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.' 'What compensation was appropriate having regard to severance and other payments already made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's relevant wages fell within the Court's jurisdiction because the motor vehicle and relevant employer superannuation payments were not included as wages. The respondent contravened Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 because notice compensation was not paid at the time of termination and because, despite the respondent's poor financial position and operational requirements, the applicant was denied procedural fairness. Compensation was limited because the respondent later rectified the notice payment and had already made substantial severance payments.

Court Disposition

The Court declared that the termination contravened Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $4,000, with a 21 day stay.

Orders

  • ['The termination of the employment of the Applicant did contravene Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act, (the Act) 1988.' 'The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the sum of four thousand dollars.' 'Stay of 21 days']