iVaughn Stephens v Konecranes Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 207

iVaughn Stephens v Konecranes Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 207

The applicant, from 1 January 1997, was employed under a contract of employment (not the Federal Award), and the termination was harsh and unfair in its performance, particularly regarding lack of consultation, notice, and treatment at redundancy. There is jurisdiction for the Industrial Relations Commission to vary the contract and order compensatory payments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment Following Hearing; Determination of Notice of Motion and Merits
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; Commission has jurisdiction; contract varied; monetary orders granted as just in the circumstances, including notice payment and interest; respondent to pay applicant's costs.
Legal Topics
['unfair Employment Contracts' 'redundancy' 'termination' 'jurisdictional Conflict Between State and Federal Law' 'contract Variation' 'compensation' 'notice Payments']
['employment Law' 'industrial Relations' 'contract Law'] ['unfair Employment Contracts' 'redundancy' 'termination' 'jurisdictional Conflict Between State and Federal Law' 'contract Variation' 'compensation' 'notice Payments']

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 S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment Following Hearing; Determination of Notice of Motion and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was employed under a Federal Award or a contract of employment' 'Whether the contract or its performance was harsh, unfair, or unconscionable under s106 Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'Effect of inconsistency between State and Federal law (s109 Constitution; s152 Workplace Relations Act 1996)' 'Whether monetary orders and contract variation are just in the circumstances']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, from 1 January 1997, was employed under a contract of employment (not the Federal Award), and the termination was harsh and unfair in its performance, particularly regarding lack of consultation, notice, and treatment at redundancy. There is jurisdiction for the Industrial Relations Commission to vary the contract and order compensatory payments.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; Commission has jurisdiction; contract varied; monetary orders granted as just in the circumstances, including notice payment and interest; respondent to pay applicant's costs.

Orders

  • ["Employment contract varied to require payment of seven months' notice" 'Notice payment to reflect full salary package, including pro rata superannuation, long service leave, with credit for payments already made' 'Redundancy payment of 10 weeks found just; no further order for redundancy' 'Interest to be paid from...