Susan Jayne Lyness and Clodock Pty Ltd [1994] IRCA 91

Susan Jayne Lyness and Clodock Pty Ltd [1994] IRCA 91

The respondent made the decision to terminate the applicant's employment and the applicant did not resign. The applicant was not given an opportunity to defend herself against allegations concerning her conduct or performance, and she was not formally warned that her employment was threatened if her performance did not improve. The termination therefore breached Section 170 DC and contravened Section 170 DE because it was harsh and unjust, amounting to a contravention of Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988. Reinstatement was impracticable and compensation of $5,000 was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 1994
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Concerning Termination of Employment / Hearing and Judgment Before Judicial Registrar Tomlinson
Outcome
Termination declared to have contravened Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988; respondent ordered to pay the applicant $5,000 compensation; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'termination for Conduct or Performance' 'opportunity to Defend Allegations' 'valid Reason for Termination' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'compensation' 'reinstatement Impracticable' 'adjournment Application']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'termination for Conduct or Performance' 'opportunity to Defend Allegations' 'valid Reason for Termination' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'compensation' 'reinstatement Impracticable' 'adjournment Application']

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 Under Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Concerning Termination of Employment / Hearing and Judgment Before Judicial Registrar Tomlinson

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent terminated the applicant's employment or whether the applicant resigned." 'Whether the applicant was given an opportunity to defend herself against allegations relating to conduct or performance before termination.' 'Whether there was a valid reason for the termination and whether it was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.' "Whether the termination was because of the applicant's pregnancy." 'What compensation, if any, should be awarded.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent made the decision to terminate the applicant's employment and the applicant did not resign. The applicant was not given an opportunity to defend herself against allegations concerning her conduct or performance, and she was not formally warned that her employment was threatened if her performance did not improve. The termination therefore breached Section 170 DC and contravened Section 170 DE because it was harsh and unjust, amounting to a contravention of Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988. Reinstatement was impracticable and compensation of $5,000 was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Termination declared to have contravened Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988; respondent ordered to pay the applicant $5,000 compensation; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $5,000.00 within 21 days of the date of this judgment.' 'The Court makes no order as to costs.']