Scherbakova v RMIT University [1996] IRCA 534

Scherbakova v RMIT University [1996] IRCA 534

The applicant was appointed under a contract expressly commencing on 21 January 1991 and terminating on 31 December 1995 unless sooner terminated. The NTEU-RMIT agreement did not oblige RMIT to offer tenure, and the applicant had no guarantee of employment beyond the fixed term. Because the position was to be abolished and the employment ended by effluxion of time rather than at the initiative of the employer, the Court lacked a basis to proceed with the unlawful termination application and it had to be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Alleging Unlawful Termination of Employment / Review of Judicial Registrar's Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction; Jurisdictional Issue Heard
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'fixed Term Employment Contract' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'want of Jurisdiction']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'fixed Term Employment Contract' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'want of Jurisdiction']

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 S 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Alleging Unlawful Termination of Employment / Review of Judicial Registrar's Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction; Jurisdictional Issue Heard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's employment was terminated by the respondent or ended by effluxion of time under a fixed-term contract." 'Whether the applicant was excluded from the operation of Div 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act because she was employed pursuant to a specified period contract.' 'Whether an agreement between the NTEU and RMIT stating that tenure should normally be offered following a five year contract obliged RMIT to offer tenure to the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was appointed under a contract expressly commencing on 21 January 1991 and terminating on 31 December 1995 unless sooner terminated. The NTEU-RMIT agreement did not oblige RMIT to offer tenure, and the applicant had no guarantee of employment beyond the fixed term. Because the position was to be abolished and the employment ended by effluxion of time rather than at the initiative of the employer, the Court lacked a basis to proceed with the unlawful termination application and it had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.']