Raymond Drury v BHP Refractories Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 276

Raymond Drury v BHP Refractories Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 276

Although the applicant's behaviour was unacceptable and insubordinate, there was no abusive conduct after the written warning and before termination. Therefore, termination at that point was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, infringing s.170DE(2) of the Act. The employment contract was not a specified period or specified task contract and so was not excluded from relief under the Act.

Parties
Applicant: Raymond Drury; Respondent: BHP Refractories Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Decision Concerning Unlawful Termination of Employment Under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Judgment After Review by Wilcox CJ
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; compensation for applicant upheld
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Dismissal, Contract of Employment, Compensation
Industrial Law Unlawful Termination Dismissal Contract of Employment Compensation

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Drury

Applicant

BHP Refractories Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Decision Concerning Unlawful Termination of Employment Under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Judgment After Review by Wilcox CJ

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment contract was a specified period contract or specified task contract
  2. 2 Whether the regulations excluded the applicant from relief under Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988
  3. 3 Whether the termination was for a valid reason and whether it was harsh, unjust or unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant's behaviour was unacceptable and insubordinate, there was no abusive conduct after the written warning and before termination. Therefore, termination at that point was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, infringing s.170DE(2) of the Act. The employment contract was not a specified period or specified task contract and so was not excluded from relief under the Act.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; compensation for applicant upheld

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The order for compensation by the Judicial Registrar is upheld.