Marion Philomena Quigley v Mega D Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 24

Marion Philomena Quigley v Mega D Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 24

The applicant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the risk of termination and the respondent's inflexibility in imposing a significant change to a long-standing roster, without genuine consultation or reasonable accommodation, rendered the termination harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under s170DE. There was...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Compensation for Unlawful Termination and Underpayment of Wages / Final Decision and Orders
Outcome
Orders for payment of compensation and underpaid wages; superannuation claim dismissed
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'procedural Fairness' 'operational Requirements' 'award Coverage' 'compensation' 'superannuation Entitlements' 'union Activity']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'procedural Fairness' 'operational Requirements' 'award Coverage' 'compensation' 'superannuation Entitlements' 'union Activity']

Source-derived case record

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 and Underpayment of Wages / Final Decision and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was given procedural fairness under s170DC of the Industrial Relations Act 1988' 'Whether there was a valid reason for termination under s170DE' 'Whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable under s170DE(2)' 'Whether termination was for a prohibited reason under s170DF(1)(b) or (e)' "Which industrial award applied to the applicant's employment" 'Whether underpaid superannuation entitlements were recoverable']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the risk of termination and the respondent's inflexibility in imposing a significant change to a long-standing roster, without genuine consultation or reasonable accommodation, rendered the termination harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under s170DE. There was insufficient evidence that union involvement was a prohibited reason for dismissal. The Shop and Warehouse (Wholesale and Retail Establishments) State Award 1977 applied to the applicant's employment, resulting in underpayment of wages. Superannuation entitlements could not be recovered through this proceeding under the statutory scheme.

Court Disposition

Orders for payment of compensation and underpaid wages; superannuation claim dismissed

Orders

  • ['The respondent pay to the applicant compensation in the sum of $1178.80 for unlawful termination of employment.' 'The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $4897.89 in underpaid wages.' 'The claim for underpaid superannuation is dismissed.' 'The amounts referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above are to be paid...