Craig, John & Ors West Australian Petroleum Ltd [1998] FCA 1251

Craig, John & Ors West Australian Petroleum Ltd [1998] FCA 1251

WAPET selected the applicants for redundancy by ranking them against criteria that were based substantially on supervisors' assessments of past conduct and performance, including soft skills. Section 170DC therefore applied, and WAPET could reasonably have given the applicants a genuine opportunity to respond before...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Applications Under Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, Now Workplace Relations Act 1996, for Reinstatement or Compensation Arising From Alleged Unlawful Termination of Employment / Reasons for Decision and Final Declarations and Orders
Outcome
Applications succeeded in part; declarations of contraventions were made and compensation was ordered instead of reinstatement.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'redundancy' 'operational Requirements' 'opportunity to Defend Allegations About Conduct or Performance' 'union Activity' 'reinstatement' 'compensation']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'redundancy' 'operational Requirements' 'opportunity to Defend Allegations About Conduct or Performance' 'union Activity' 'reinstatement' 'compensation']

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

Applications Under Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, Now Workplace Relations Act 1996, for Reinstatement or Compensation Arising From Alleged Unlawful Termination of Employment / Reasons for Decision and Final Declarations and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants' employment was terminated for reasons related to their conduct or performance so that section 170DC applied" 'Whether WAPET could reasonably be expected to give the applicants an opportunity to defend themselves against allegations made against them' 'Whether the post-selection feedback meetings gave the applicants a real opportunity to defend themselves' 'Whether WAPET contravened section 170DE(1) by terminating employment without a valid reason' "Whether WAPET terminated Mr Craig's employment for reasons including his union activities" 'Whether reinstatement was practicable' 'What compensation should be awarded under section 170EE']

Ratio Decidendi

WAPET selected the applicants for redundancy by ranking them against criteria that were based substantially on supervisors' assessments of past conduct and performance, including soft skills. Section 170DC therefore applied, and WAPET could reasonably have given the applicants a genuine opportunity to respond before or during the selection process. The later feedback meetings did not provide a real opportunity to defend themselves because the selection outcome was effectively final and the applicants were not given adequate particulars or comparative information. The termination of each applicant's employment therefore contravened section 170DC. In Mr Craig's case, WAPET also failed to...

Court Disposition

Applications succeeded in part; declarations of contraventions were made and compensation was ordered instead of reinstatement.

Orders

  • ['The respondent terminated the employment of the applicants in contravention of section 170DC of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.' 'The respondent terminated the employment of the first applicant in contravention of section 170DF(1)(f) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.' 'The respondent pay to Mr John Craig...