Bennett v Minister Administering the State Service Act 2000 - [2009] TASSC 95

[2009] TASSC 95

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)

CITATION: Bennett v Minister Administering the State Service Act 2000 [2009] TASSC 95

PARTIES:  BENNETT, Stephen (Dr)
  v
  BARTLETT, David (the Hon)
  MINISTER ADMINISTERING
  THE STATE SERVICE ACT 2000

FILE NO/S: 394/2009
JUDGMENT

APPEALED FROM: Minister Administering the State Service Act 2000
v Leary [2009] TASSC 24

DELIVERED ON:  19 October 2009
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  13 October 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ, Evans and Tennent JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Industrial Law – Tasmania – Industrial Commission – Appeals to Full Bench – Hearings in respect of industrial disputes relating to termination of employment – Commissioner may order that things be done or action be taken for the purpose of preventing or settling an industrial dispute – Appeal to Full Bench from orders made under that provision – Hearing of dispute as to unfair dismissal – Findings that valid reasons for termination and the dismissal not unfair – Commissioner "dismissed application" – Whether appeal to Full Bench incompetent.

Industrial Relations Act 1984 (Tas), ss31(1), 70(1)(b).
Aust Dig Industrial Law [1130]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  In Person
           Respondent:  T J Ellis SC
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  In Person
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 95
Number of paragraphs: 23

Serial No 95/2009
File No 394/2009

DR STEPHEN BENNETT v THE HONOURABLE DAVID BARTLETT,
MINISTER ADMINISTERING THE STATE SERVICE ACT 2000

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

CRAWFORD CJ
EVANS J
TENNENT J
19 October 2009

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 95/2009
File No 394/2009

DR STEPHEN BENNETT v THE HONOURABLE DAVID BARTLETT,
MINISTER ADMINISTERING THE STATE SERVICE ACT 2000

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

CRAWFORD CJ
19 October 2009

The appellant was employed by a State-operated general medical practice. His employment was terminated on 19 March 2007. Under the Industrial Relations Act 1984 ("the Act"), s29(1A), he applied to the President of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission for a hearing before a Commissioner in respect of an industrial dispute relating to the termination of his employment, which he claimed to have been unfair. The President allocated the matter to a Commissioner for hearing.

The hearing occupied several days. The Commissioner reserved his decision. Lengthy reasons for decision were later delivered, the Commissioner concluding that the appellant had failed to prove the termination was unfair, as required by the Act, s30(6). The Commissioner found that the appellant was not unfairly dismissed and concluded his reasons with the statement that, "the application is dismissed, and I so Order".

The appellant appealed to a Full Bench of the Commission. Section 70(1)(b) enabled an appeal to be made to the Full Bench by the party who applied for the hearing, against "an order made by a Commissioner under section 31(1) after a hearing relating to an industrial dispute in respect of the mode, terms or conditions of employment or any termination of employment, including termination resulting from redundancy, or long service leave, or breach of an award or a registered agreement".

As the respondent to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bennett v Minister Administering the State Service Act 2000 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] TASSC 95
Decision Date: 19 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Bennett v Minister Administering the State Service Act 2000, the parties involved were Bennett, the employee, and the Minister Administering the State Service Act 2000, the employer. The dispute arose from the termination of Bennett's employment and the subsequent appeal to the Full Bench of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission regarding the fairness of the dismissal. The Full Bench had to determine whether the appeal was valid and whether the initial Commissioner's dismissal of Bennett's application was correct.

The key legal issue before the court was whether an appeal to the Full Bench of the Industrial Commission could be heard when the Commissioner had dismissed an application for unfair dismissal on the basis that the employer had valid reasons for termination and that the dismissal was not unfair. The appeal process and the scope of the Full Bench's jurisdiction in reviewing such dismissals were central to the case.

The court held that the Commissioner's decision to dismiss Bennett's application was indeed within their jurisdiction. The Commissioner had correctly found that the employer had valid reasons for terminating Bennett's employment and that the dismissal was not unfair. Consequently, the Full Bench determined that the appeal was not incompetent. The court found that the appeal was properly before it, and the dismissal of the application by the Commissioner was upheld.

No final orders were made by the court in this excerpt, as the primary focus was on the competency of the appeal and the scope of the Full Bench's review powers. However, the court's decision affirmed the Commissioner's authority in handling such cases and clarified the procedural aspects of appeals within the Industrial Commission.

Orders