Ward v Saipem Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 527

Ward v Saipem Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 527

The application was dismissed because no error of law was shown in the Judicial Registrar's findings. The factual finding that the applicant's history as a safety representative was not a factor in the decision to dismiss him was not tainted by the separate finding that his prior safety representative activity was among the reasons for his nomination for transfer. The Judicial Registrar was also entitled to find that compliance with the direction to transfer to Spread 1 was consistent with the applicant's "normal safe work", particularly where employee transfers between spreads were common, the Agreement allowed duties within the employee's skill, competence and training, and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of a Judicial Registrar's Decision Dismissing an Application Under S 170 EA for Compensation for Alleged Unlawful Termination of Employment / Federal Court Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'prohibited Reasons for Termination' 'employee Representative Activity' 'workplace Transfer Direction' 'grievance Procedure' 'normal Safe Work']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'prohibited Reasons for Termination' 'employee Representative Activity' 'workplace Transfer Direction' 'grievance Procedure' 'normal Safe Work']

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 for Review of a Judicial Registrar's Decision Dismissing an Application Under S 170 EA for Compensation for Alleged Unlawful Termination of Employment / Federal Court Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the finding that the dismissal was not for a prohibited reason was tainted or affected by the finding that the decision to nominate the applicant for transfer included the fact that he had acted as a safety representative.' 'Whether the requirement in the grievance procedure that "normal safe work" continue required the applicant to remain in his pre-transfer position at Spread 2 pending resolution of the dispute.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because no error of law was shown in the Judicial Registrar's findings. The factual finding that the applicant's history as a safety representative was not a factor in the decision to dismiss him was not tainted by the separate finding that his prior safety representative activity was among the reasons for his nomination for transfer. The Judicial Registrar was also entitled to find that compliance with the direction to transfer to Spread 1 was consistent with the applicant's "normal safe work", particularly where employee transfers between spreads were common, the Agreement allowed duties within the employee's skill, competence and training, and the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.']