Price and Price v. Monaro Racing Stables [2006] NSWIRComm 1017

Price and Price v. Monaro Racing Stables [2006] NSWIRComm 1017

On the balance of the evidence, the circumstances were more appropriately categorised as dismissals rather than resignations. The Commissioner accepted Mrs Price's denial that she issued an ultimatum, found it more likely that Ms Rae initiated the telephone call and terminated the applicants' services, and concluded that Ms Rae should have made further efforts to resolve staff differences before dismissing the two employees. The dismissals were unfair, reinstatement was not viable or sought, and monetary compensation was ordered having regard to Ss.89(5) and (6), the short periods of employment, and the applicants' subsequent circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Applications Under S.84 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996 Concerning Alleged Unfair Termination of Employment / Arbitration and Decision
Outcome
Applications upheld to the extent that monetary compensation was ordered for both applicants.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'monetary Compensation' 'underpayment of Wages' 'dismissal or Resignation' 'reinstatement']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'monetary Compensation' 'underpayment of Wages' 'dismissal or Resignation' 'reinstatement']

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

Applications Under S.84 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996 Concerning Alleged Unfair Termination of Employment / Arbitration and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants were dismissed by the respondent or left employment on their own volition.' "Whether the termination of the applicants' employment was harsh, unreasonable or unjust under S.84(1)." 'Whether alleged underpayments of wages could be addressed in arbitrated Part 6 proceedings.' 'Whether monetary compensation should be ordered under S.89(5).']

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of the evidence, the circumstances were more appropriately categorised as dismissals rather than resignations. The Commissioner accepted Mrs Price's denial that she issued an ultimatum, found it more likely that Ms Rae initiated the telephone call and terminated the applicants' services, and concluded that Ms Rae should have made further efforts to resolve staff differences before dismissing the two employees. The dismissals were unfair, reinstatement was not viable or sought, and monetary compensation was ordered having regard to Ss.89(5) and (6), the short periods of employment, and the applicants' subsequent circumstances.

Court Disposition

Applications upheld to the extent that monetary compensation was ordered for both applicants.

Orders

  • ['Ms Myfanny Rae shall pay the sum of $700.00 to Ms Melinda Price within 28 days.' 'Ms Myfanny Rae shall pay the sum of $925.00 to Ms Samantha Price within 28 days.' 'This order shall take effect on and from Thursday, 23 February, 2006.']