Milardovic v Vemco Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2016] FCA 19

Milardovic v Vemco Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2016] FCA 19

The applicant proved entitlement to redundancy payments under s 119 of the Fair Work Act as his position was made redundant and not replaced by redeployment or equivalent position. The first respondent contravened s 44(1) by failing to pay redundancy pay. The applicant failed to prove prohibited reasons for adverse action or breach regarding notice pay; termination was not causally linked to complaints about bullying or the WorkCover claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment and Industrial Relations / Final Judgment
Outcome
Partial success for applicant; declaration and orders in favour of applicant for redundancy pay; dismissal against second respondent.
Legal Topics
['adverse Action' 'redundancy Pay' 'workplace Rights' 'work Cover Claim' 'bullying' 'national Employment Standards' 'termination Notice Pay']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['adverse Action' 'redundancy Pay' 'workplace Rights' 'work Cover Claim' 'bullying' 'national Employment Standards' 'termination Notice Pay']

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

Employment and Industrial Relations / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the respondent take adverse action by reason of exercise of workplace rights, namely making complaints and a WorkCover claim regarding bullying?' 'Did the respondent breach National Employment Standards by failing to pay termination notice and redundancy entitlements?' 'Is the applicant entitled to redundancy payments under s 119 of the Fair Work Act?']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant proved entitlement to redundancy payments under s 119 of the Fair Work Act as his position was made redundant and not replaced by redeployment or equivalent position. The first respondent contravened s 44(1) by failing to pay redundancy pay. The applicant failed to prove prohibited reasons for adverse action or breach regarding notice pay; termination was not causally linked to complaints about bullying or the WorkCover claim.

Court Disposition

Partial success for applicant; declaration and orders in favour of applicant for redundancy pay; dismissal against second respondent.

Orders

  • ['First respondent contravened s 44(1) by failing to pay redundancy pay under s 119(1) of the Fair Work Act.' 'Applicant and first respondent to file agreed proposed order as to redundancy pay by 12 February 2016.' 'First respondent to pay applicant interest on redundancy amount from 11 November 2014 until judgment,...