Raul Samar and Reliance Security Group Pty Ltd [2001] NSWIRComm 113

Raul Samar and Reliance Security Group Pty Ltd [2001] NSWIRComm 113

The applicant's position became genuinely redundant because Castle Towers Management substantially changed its required security coverage, causing a change in the respondent's operational requirements. The 13 April 2000 agreement permitted alteration of the applicant's roster in those circumstances. There was no evidentiary basis to find that the redundancy was a sham or that it involved substantive or procedural unfairness, and the applicant had acquiesced in the negotiated redundancy package.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Application by Raul Samar Re Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to S84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Extempore Decision After Hearing
Outcome
No unfair dismissal; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'redundancy' 'alternative Employment' 'procedural Fairness' 'substantive Fairness' 'roster Changes']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'redundancy' 'alternative Employment' 'procedural Fairness' 'substantive Fairness' 'roster Changes']

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 by Raul Samar Re Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to S84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Extempore Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant was unfairly dismissed when his position became redundant after changes to the respondent's operational requirements." "Whether the respondent breached the agreement of 13 April 2000 by altering the applicant's agreed roster." 'Whether the redundancy was a sham or involved substantive or procedural unfairness.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's position became genuinely redundant because Castle Towers Management substantially changed its required security coverage, causing a change in the respondent's operational requirements. The 13 April 2000 agreement permitted alteration of the applicant's roster in those circumstances. There was no evidentiary basis to find that the redundancy was a sham or that it involved substantive or procedural unfairness, and the applicant had acquiesced in the negotiated redundancy package.

Court Disposition

No unfair dismissal; application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']