Haining v Linfox Transport (Aust) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWIRComm 279

Haining v Linfox Transport (Aust) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWIRComm 279

The letter of 8 March 2000 gave effective notice that the applicant's employment would end on 29 March 2000 unless a suitable alternative position was provided. The respondent did not establish any mutual agreement on 28 March 2000 to suspend or extend that notice, and the positions identified by the respondent were not suitable alternative employment at the applicant's managerial level. The applicant was therefore redundant, and the contract was unfair because it permitted termination in those circumstances without the notice and severance recognition provided for by the respondent's redundancy policy. The appropriate relief was based on that policy using base salary, not the asserted...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging an Unfair Contract Arising From Termination of Employment and Redundancy / Judgment After Hearing; Contract Declared Void and Monetary Orders Made
Outcome
Application allowed in part; contract declared void on and from 29 March 2000, respondent ordered to pay monetary relief, and costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'redundancy' 'notice of Termination' 'suitable Alternative Employment' 'managerial Employee' 'annual Leave' 'long Service Leave']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'redundancy' 'notice of Termination' 'suitable Alternative Employment' 'managerial Employee' 'annual Leave' 'long Service Leave']

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 Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging an Unfair Contract Arising From Termination of Employment and Redundancy / Judgment After Hearing; Contract Declared Void and Monetary Orders Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's employment ended on 29 March 2000 or 19 May 2000" 'Whether the notice of termination given to the applicant was conditional or was varied by mutual agreement' 'Whether the respondent offered suitable alternative employment to the applicant before the termination took effect' "Whether the applicant's contract of employment was unfair because it permitted termination without appropriate notice and redundancy recognition" "Whether redundancy, notice, annual leave and long service leave should be calculated on base salary or the applicant's asserted total remuneration package"]

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 8 March 2000 gave effective notice that the applicant's employment would end on 29 March 2000 unless a suitable alternative position was provided. The respondent did not establish any mutual agreement on 28 March 2000 to suspend or extend that notice, and the positions identified by the respondent were not suitable alternative employment at the applicant's managerial level. The applicant was therefore redundant, and the contract was unfair because it permitted termination in those circumstances without the notice and severance recognition provided for by the respondent's redundancy policy. The appropriate relief was based on that policy using base salary, not the asserted...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; contract declared void on and from 29 March 2000, respondent ordered to pay monetary relief, and costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The contract of employment between the applicant and the respondent is declared void on and from 29 March 2000 except to the extent that the applicant received remuneration and benefits from the respondent or became entitled to receive such remuneration or benefits.' 'The respondent shall pay to the applicant the...