Davidson v Blueline Meats Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 509

Davidson v Blueline Meats Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 509

The applicant resigned on 27 March 1996 and gave three weeks notice. The respondent did not coerce, instruct, direct or force the resignation, and did not agree to any withdrawal of it. The applicant's statement that he would be right to resume full duties after his holidays was not a clear and unambiguous withdrawal of the resignation and was not clearly accepted by the respondent. The employment ended by expiry of the notice period initiated by the applicant, not by any act of the respondent, so there was no termination at the initiative of the employer within s170EA.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Alleging Unlawful Termination / Reasons for Decision and Final Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'jurisdiction' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'resignation' 'withdrawal of Resignation']
['industrial Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'jurisdiction' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'resignation' 'withdrawal of Resignation']

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 Pursuant to S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Alleging Unlawful Termination / Reasons for Decision and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's employment was terminated at the initiative of the employer for the purposes of s170EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988." 'Whether the applicant resigned his employment.' "Whether the applicant withdrew his resignation with the respondent's consent." "Whether the respondent's conduct in initially denying family leave or refusing to allow the applicant to remain employed constituted termination at the initiative of the employer."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant resigned on 27 March 1996 and gave three weeks notice. The respondent did not coerce, instruct, direct or force the resignation, and did not agree to any withdrawal of it. The applicant's statement that he would be right to resume full duties after his holidays was not a clear and unambiguous withdrawal of the resignation and was not clearly accepted by the respondent. The employment ended by expiry of the notice period initiated by the applicant, not by any act of the respondent, so there was no termination at the initiative of the employer within s170EA.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application made pursuant to Section 170EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 be dismissed.']