Ronan Mallen v Beasam Pty Ltd [1994] IRCA 85

Ronan Mallen v Beasam Pty Ltd [1994] IRCA 85

The respondent's restructuring created a true and bona fide redundancy and it made sufficient efforts to locate suitable alternative employment, but the termination was harsh within S170DE(2) because the respondent did not consult the applicant or give him an opportunity to be heard before implementing the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 1994
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 in Respect of Termination of Employment / Reasons for Judgment Delivered Ex Tempore After Hearing
Outcome
Termination contravened S170DE(2) because procedural fairness was denied; compensation refused; time for filing extended to 24th May, 1994.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'redundancy' 'procedural Fairness' 'compensation' 'extension of Time']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'redundancy' 'procedural Fairness' 'compensation' 'extension of Time']

Source-derived case record

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 Pursuant to S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 in Respect of Termination of Employment / Reasons for Judgment Delivered Ex Tempore After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the termination of the applicant's employment contravened Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 by being harsh, unjust or unreasonable under S170DE(2)." "Whether the respondent's failure to consult, forewarn, or give the applicant an opportunity to be heard before implementing termination denied procedural fairness." 'Whether compensation should be ordered under S170EE(2).' 'Whether time for filing the application should be extended to 24th May, 1994 under S170EA(3).']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's restructuring created a true and bona fide redundancy and it made sufficient efforts to locate suitable alternative employment, but the termination was harsh within S170DE(2) because the respondent did not consult the applicant or give him an opportunity to be heard before implementing the termination. Compensation was refused because reinstatement was not sought and was impracticable, the employer otherwise acted fairly, provided outplacement assistance and financial benefits, the applicant obtained other work, and there was no established financial loss or likelihood that employment would have continued for a significant period even if procedural fairness had been...

Court Disposition

Termination contravened S170DE(2) because procedural fairness was denied; compensation refused; time for filing extended to 24th May, 1994.

Orders

  • ['That the termination of the applicant by the respondent contravened S170DE (2) of the Act in that the applicant was denied procedural fairness.' 'That the application for compensation pursuant to S170EE(2) of the Act be refused.' 'That the time for filing the application be extended to 24th May, 1994.']