Norval v Plan International Australia [1996] IRCA 633

Norval v Plan International Australia [1996] IRCA 633

The applicant's employment was subject to a three month probationary period expiring on 10 April 1996, but because termination occurred on 15 April 1996 the Court had jurisdiction. The respondent breached section 170DC because, although allegations were put to the applicant at the termination meeting, the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 170 EA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for Relief Arising Out of Alleged Unlawful Termination of Employment / Final Determination After Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed in part; breach of section 170DC declared and compensation ordered; reinstatement not ordered.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'probationary Employment' 'procedural Fairness' 'valid Reason for Termination' 'compensation' 'reinstatement']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'probationary Employment' 'procedural Fairness' 'valid Reason for Termination' 'compensation' 'reinstatement']

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 Under Section 170 EA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for Relief Arising Out of Alleged Unlawful Termination of Employment / Final Determination After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's employment was subject to a three month probationary period agreed in advance" 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction given the termination occurred after the expiry of the probationary period' 'Whether the respondent breached section 170DC by failing to give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations about conduct or performance' "Whether there was a valid reason for termination under section 170DE connected with the applicant's conduct or performance" 'Whether reinstatement or compensation should be ordered']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's employment was subject to a three month probationary period expiring on 10 April 1996, but because termination occurred on 15 April 1996 the Court had jurisdiction. The respondent breached section 170DC because, although allegations were put to the applicant at the termination meeting, the decision-maker had already made up her mind and no response could have changed the outcome. However, there was a valid reason for termination based on the applicant's interpersonal difficulties and inability or unwillingness to provide the marketing department with requested information. Reinstatement was impracticable, and only modest compensation was appropriate because the applicant...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; breach of section 170DC declared and compensation ordered; reinstatement not ordered.

Orders

  • ["The respondent, in terminating the applicant's employment, breached the provisions of section 170DC of the Workplace Relations Act 1996." "The respondent pay to the applicant the equivalent of two weeks' wages by way of compensation, such payment to be made by 10 January 1997."]