Malek -v- Ballace Pty Ltd trading as Divisional Security [2006] NSWIRComm 1043

Malek -v- Ballace Pty Ltd trading as Divisional Security [2006] NSWIRComm 1043

The dismissal was harsh, unreasonable and unjust because it was without a properly established basis and was implemented with a grossly deficient process, including telephone advice of dismissal, no proper documentary advice, and no proper opportunity for the applicant to defend himself or offer an explanation....

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 [nsw] / Arbitration After Unsuccessful Conciliation; Extempore Decision
Outcome
The Commission found in favour of the applicant and held the dismissal harsh, unreasonable and unjust; compensation was ordered.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'termination of Employment' 'procedural Fairness' 'compensation' 'dismissal by Telephone']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'termination of Employment' 'procedural Fairness' 'compensation' 'dismissal by Telephone']

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

Unfair Dismissal Application Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 [nsw] / Arbitration After Unsuccessful Conciliation; Extempore Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's dismissal was harsh, unreasonable and unjust." 'Whether the employer had a properly established substantive basis for dismissal.' 'Whether the process used to dismiss the applicant was fair and just.' 'Whether reinstatement or re-employment was practicable and, if not, whether compensation should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal was harsh, unreasonable and unjust because it was without a properly established basis and was implemented with a grossly deficient process, including telephone advice of dismissal, no proper documentary advice, and no proper opportunity for the applicant to defend himself or offer an explanation. Reinstatement or re-employment was impractical, so monetary compensation was ordered.

Court Disposition

The Commission found in favour of the applicant and held the dismissal harsh, unreasonable and unjust; compensation was ordered.

Orders

  • ['The Commission Orders, pursuant to sections 89(5) and 89(6) of the Act, that the employer pay to the applicant an amount of compensation of $5,750.00. This amount is a gross figure and appropriate taxation treatment is a matter for the Parties.' 'The amount of compensation specified in Order 1 above is to be paid...