Roy Baines v Interroll Pty Ltd Glynn Cook v Interroll Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 284

Roy Baines v Interroll Pty Ltd Glynn Cook v Interroll Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 284

Although the closure and transfer of the bulk products division to Singapore provided a valid operational reason for terminating the applicants' employment, a reasonable employer should have advised employees in that division on or about 23 January 1995 that the division was not to be sold and would close and move to Singapore. The failure to give notice or consult denied the applicants about three weeks to seek other employment and prepare for the loss of employment, and the late Friday termination was not dignified. The terminations were therefore harsh, unjust or unreasonable and in breach of section 170DE(2) of the Act. Reinstatement was impracticable because the division had moved to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 1995
Procedural Posture
Applications Pursuant to Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act Concerning Termination of Employment / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Minutes of Orders After Hearing
Outcome
Applications allowed; terminations found harsh, unjust or unreasonable; compensation ordered.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'redundancy' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'consultation and Notice' 'compensation']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'redundancy' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'consultation and Notice' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Applications Pursuant to Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act Concerning Termination of Employment / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Minutes of Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a valid reason for the applicants' terminations due to the operational requirements of the respondent's business." 'Whether the redundancies were harsh, unjust or unreasonable because the applicants were given no warning or consultation and were terminated suddenly.' "Whether the respondent's selection and transfer of another employee into the Meca division was fair." 'Whether reinstatement or compensation was the appropriate remedy.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the closure and transfer of the bulk products division to Singapore provided a valid operational reason for terminating the applicants' employment, a reasonable employer should have advised employees in that division on or about 23 January 1995 that the division was not to be sold and would close and move to Singapore. The failure to give notice or consult denied the applicants about three weeks to seek other employment and prepare for the loss of employment, and the late Friday termination was not dignified. The terminations were therefore harsh, unjust or unreasonable and in breach of section 170DE(2) of the Act. Reinstatement was impracticable because the division had moved to...

Court Disposition

Applications allowed; terminations found harsh, unjust or unreasonable; compensation ordered.

Orders

  • ['In VI 1739 of 1995, the respondent pay Glynn Cook the sum of $1250.' 'In VI 1739 of 1995, payment be made within fourteen days of the date of judgment.' 'In VI 1730 of 1995, the respondent pay Roy Baines the sum of $1400.' 'In VI 1730 of 1995, payment be made within fourteen days of the date of judgment.']