Hill v Compass Ten Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2012] FCA 815

Hill v Compass Ten Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2012] FCA 815

The application was dismissed because the evidence did not establish that Mr Hill made a relevant complaint to the Council or the Department for the purposes of s 772(1)(e) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and Compass Ten was contractually entitled and justified in summarily dismissing him. Mr Hill deliberately misled Compass Ten about holding a first aid certificate, an essential qualification, and his overall conduct showed persistent unwillingness to follow the Director's instructions and Compass Ten's established procedures, giving Compass Ten a well-founded reason for summary dismissal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Fair Work Division Employment Termination Application and Breach of Employment Contract Claim / Final Hearing After Interlocutory Judgment; Application Dismissed and Costs Submissions Ordered
Outcome
Application dismissed; parties ordered to provide written submissions on whether costs should be awarded to the Respondent under s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Legal Topics
['summary Termination for Serious Misconduct' 'adverse Action or Termination for Making a Complaint' 'post Termination Discovery of Misconduct' 'employment Contract Breach' 'workplace Record Keeping and Policies' 'costs Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law' 'contract Law'] ['summary Termination for Serious Misconduct' 'adverse Action or Termination for Making a Complaint' 'post Termination Discovery of Misconduct' 'employment Contract Breach' 'workplace Record Keeping and Policies' 'costs Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (cth)']

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

Fair Work Division Employment Termination Application and Breach of Employment Contract Claim / Final Hearing After Interlocutory Judgment; Application Dismissed and Costs Submissions Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Hill lodged a complaint with Wingecarribee Shire Council in respect of building work at Sunshine Lodge and whether any such complaint was a complaint within s 772(1)(e) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)' 'Whether Mr Hill made a complaint to the Department of Family and Community Services, Aging, Disability and Home Care and whether his Fair Work Act claims succeeded' "Whether Compass Ten breached Mr Hill's employment contract by summarily terminating him" "Whether Compass Ten could rely on misconduct discovered after termination, namely Mr Hill's lack of a first aid certificate and misleading application material" "Whether Mr Hill's conduct, including failure to follow medical, training, financial and tobacco record systems, constituted serious misconduct or a serious breach of contract"]

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the evidence did not establish that Mr Hill made a relevant complaint to the Council or the Department for the purposes of s 772(1)(e) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and Compass Ten was contractually entitled and justified in summarily dismissing him. Mr Hill deliberately misled Compass Ten about holding a first aid certificate, an essential qualification, and his overall conduct showed persistent unwillingness to follow the Director's instructions and Compass Ten's established procedures, giving Compass Ten a well-founded reason for summary dismissal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; parties ordered to provide written submissions on whether costs should be awarded to the Respondent under s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'Within 14 days both parties provide the Court with written submissions no more than ten pages in length on the issue of whether pursuant to s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) costs should be awarded to the Respondent.']