Hadchiti, Raymond & Anor v Sheen Panel Service [1997] FCA 757

Hadchiti, Raymond & Anor v Sheen Panel Service [1997] FCA 757

The second applicant remained an employee during the interim training period, but he had relinquished his spray painter position, participated in selecting his successor, and reached an oral agreement to purchase the business. When he did not proceed with the purchase, the basis of the arrangement was destroyed; the respondent had no available management position and no further obligation to him, so termination based on operational requirements was valid and did not breach s 170DE(1). The respondent admitted unlawful termination of the first applicant, whose employment would have continued for at least six months, making $10,556 the proper compensation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 1997
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Under S 170 EA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Concerning Alleged Unlawful Termination of Employment / Reasons for Judgment and Orders After Hearing
Outcome
In proceeding No VI 1143 of 1997 the first applicant was awarded compensation; in proceeding No VI 1144 of 1997 the second applicant's application was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'employment Relationship' 'valid Reason for Termination' 'operational Requirements' 'compensation']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'employment Relationship' 'valid Reason for Termination' 'operational Requirements' '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

Proceedings Under S 170 EA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Concerning Alleged Unlawful Termination of Employment / Reasons for Judgment and Orders After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second applicant remained an employee of the respondent after relinquishing his spray painter position to be trained in order to purchase the business.' "Whether the respondent had a valid reason to terminate the second applicant's services when the proposed purchase did not proceed." "Whether ss 170DC or 170DB of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) applied to the second applicant's termination." "What compensation should be awarded to the first applicant for the respondent's admitted breach of s 170DE(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The second applicant remained an employee during the interim training period, but he had relinquished his spray painter position, participated in selecting his successor, and reached an oral agreement to purchase the business. When he did not proceed with the purchase, the basis of the arrangement was destroyed; the respondent had no available management position and no further obligation to him, so termination based on operational requirements was valid and did not breach s 170DE(1). The respondent admitted unlawful termination of the first applicant, whose employment would have continued for at least six months, making $10,556 the proper compensation.

Court Disposition

In proceeding No VI 1143 of 1997 the first applicant was awarded compensation; in proceeding No VI 1144 of 1997 the second applicant's application was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings No VI 1143 of 1997: The respondent pay to the applicant, after payment of any taxation that might be due, the net sum of $10,556.' 'In proceedings No VI 1144 of 1997: The application is dismissed.']