Shankar and Neumo Packaging Systems Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 227

Shankar and Neumo Packaging Systems Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 227

The respondent did not dismiss the applicant, actually or constructively. The words used on 3 December 1999 were found to be, in substance, that the applicant should go home and cool off and that the matter would be discussed on Monday, which could not convey an intention to dismiss. The respondent's subsequent conduct, including arranging meetings, continuing full pay, not seeking return of keys, confirming in writing that the applicant remained employed, and attempting to resolve grievances, was inconsistent with dismissal and consistent with an ongoing employment relationship. The applicant continued to act as an employee and then resigned on 10 December 1999. Because there was no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Seeking Relief in Respect of Alleged Unfair Dismissal / Arbitration and Decision on Whether the Commission Had Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'constructive Dismissal' 'resignation' 'jurisdiction of the Commission' 'termination of Employment']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'constructive Dismissal' 'resignation' 'jurisdiction of the Commission' 'termination of Employment']

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 Pursuant to S84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Seeking Relief in Respect of Alleged Unfair Dismissal / Arbitration and Decision on Whether the Commission Had Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was dismissed by the respondent on 3 December 1999.' "Whether the applicant's resignation amounted to a constructive dismissal or termination at the employer's initiative." 'Whether the Commission had jurisdiction to hear and determine the unfair dismissal application under Pt 6 of ch 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent did not dismiss the applicant, actually or constructively. The words used on 3 December 1999 were found to be, in substance, that the applicant should go home and cool off and that the matter would be discussed on Monday, which could not convey an intention to dismiss. The respondent's subsequent conduct, including arranging meetings, continuing full pay, not seeking return of keys, confirming in writing that the applicant remained employed, and attempting to resolve grievances, was inconsistent with dismissal and consistent with an ongoing employment relationship. The applicant continued to act as an employee and then resigned on 10 December 1999. Because there was no...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.' 'Any application for costs foreshadowed by Ms Devine must be made by way of notice of motion filed with the Commission and served on the applicant within twenty-one (21) days of 10 November 2000.']