Ferguson v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2005] NSWIRComm 1213

Ferguson v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2005] NSWIRComm 1213

The applicant's former gatehouse position no longer existed after the respondent contracted out the security function, and no suitable alternative position within the respondent's business was available because of the applicant's physical restrictions and the factory environment. The correspondence in 1995 and 1996...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Termination found harsh; compensation ordered; reinstatement and re-employment not ordered.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'redundancy' 'reinstatement' 'compensation' 'estoppel' 'alternative Employment']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'redundancy' 'reinstatement' 'compensation' 'estoppel' 'alternative Employment']

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 Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's dismissal following contracting out of the security function and redundancy of his position was harsh, unjust or unreasonable." 'Whether the respondent was estopped from terminating the applicant because of correspondence in 1995 and 1996 concerning continued suitable employment.' 'Whether reinstatement to the gatehouse position or re-employment in another position was practicable.' 'Whether compensation should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's former gatehouse position no longer existed after the respondent contracted out the security function, and no suitable alternative position within the respondent's business was available because of the applicant's physical restrictions and the factory environment. The correspondence in 1995 and 1996 did not amount to a guarantee of indefinite employment, so estoppel was not relevant. However, given the applicant's nearly eighteen years of service, serious work injury, and significantly reduced work opportunities, the respondent had an additional responsibility to provide structured support to help him find suitable employment outside the business. Its failure to do so made...

Court Disposition

Termination found harsh; compensation ordered; reinstatement and re-employment not ordered.

Orders

  • ['That in accordance with s.89 (5) of the Act the respondent Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited pay to the applicant, Mr. Richard Ferguson the sum of $7,500.' 'Such payment to be made within 21 days of the date of this Decision.']