INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONVENTION - CASUAL EMPLOYMENT - INTERPRETATION - meaning of “casual employee engaged for a short period”
INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - Claim of UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - VALID REASON - HARSH, UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS - COMPENSATION - whether COMPENSATION payable for distress, disappointment, anxiety, humiliation, injured feelings not amounting to psychiatric illness
INDUSTRIAL LAW - EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT - whether IMPLIED TERM - duty of mutual trust and confidence - BREACH OF CONTRACT - whether DAMAGES payable for breach of duty of mutual trust and confidence - Whether damages for DISTRESS payable
Swan v Williams Demolition Pty Limited (1987) 9 NSWLR 172
Western Excavating (ECC) Limited v Sharp [1978] ICR 221
Whelan v Waitaki Meats Limited [1991] 2 NZLR 74
Woods v W M Car Services (Peterborough) Limited (Court of Appeal) [1982] ICR 693
Woods v W M Car Services (Peterborough) Limited [1981] ICR 666
Mara BURAZIN v The BLACKTOWN CITY GUARDIAN NI 1993 of 1995
CORAM: MADGWICK J PLACE: SYDNEY
DATE: 2 AUGUST 1996
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. 1993 of 1995
BETWEEN MARA BURAZIN Applicant
AND BLACKTOWN CITY GUARDIAN PTY LTD Respondent
CORAM: MADGWICK J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 2 AUGUST 1996
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The Respondent pay compensation in the amount of $3,000.00 to the Applicant, together with interest at the rate prescribed by Order 35 Rule 8 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules within 14 days from today.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. 1993 of 1995
BETWEEN MARA BURAZIN Applicant
AND BLACKTOWN CITY GUARDIAN PTY LTD Respondent
CORAM: MADGWICK J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 2 AUGUST 1996
SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT
MADGWICK J: In my “Reasons for Judgment” published on 15 December 1995, I expressed some final and some tentative views about the legal issues in this matter. I expressed the view that some of those issues, being of some importance to this Court, should be decided by a Full Bench. However, I was not inclined to refer the matter to a Full Bench unless and until the Applicant could obtain financial assistance for a hearing before the Full Court. I adjourned the matter for that reason and caused my remarks to be sent to the Attorney General and the Minister for Industrial Relations. In the event, the Applicant was unable to obtain that assistance and, after the change of government, the Minister declined to intervene.
On 2 May 1996, I decided not to so refer those issues. It remains for me to dispose of the matter myself. Having received, after invitation, no further submissions from Counsel, I now publish my decision. The issues in detail, and my reasoning, are contained in my observations published earlier, and which are attached as “Appendix A” to this Supplementary Judgment. Where necessary for a final resolution of the matter, I adopt, as concluded views, the tentative approaches I suggested in December.
Division 3 of Part VIa of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) applied to the Applicant.
The applicant is entitled to compensation under that Act for the unlawful termination of her employment, such termination having been not for a valid reason within the meaning of the Act and/or harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
The Applicant is entitled to be compensated for economic loss, as a result of her diminished employability and the difficulty of finding alternative employment, caused by the circumstances of her unlawful termination. An amount of $3,000.00, being the equivalent of about two months’ pay, is appropriate.
The Applicant is not entitled to compensation under the Act, or damages at common law, merely for distress, disappointment or injured feelings arising out of the termination of her employment.
The Respondent, by its treatment of the Applicant leading up to the unlawful termination of her employment, breached an implied duty of mutual trust and confidence. However, no compensible damage extending beyond what is provided for by the Act, and for which I have awarded the Applicant compensation, flowed from that breach. I decline, therefore, to make an award of damages for breach of contract, in addition to the amount for compensation under the Act.
I order the Respondent to pay compensation in the amount of $3,000.00 to the Applicant, together with interest at the rate prescribed by Order 35 Rule 8 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules, within 14 days from today.
I certify that this and the preceding 2 pages are a true copy of the Supplementary Judgment of His Honour Justice Madgwick.
Associate:
Dated: 2 August 1996
APPEARANCES
Counsel for the Applicant: M Christie
Solicitor for the Applicant: Champion & Partners
Counsel for the Respondent: P Cook
Solicitor for the Respondent: B David & Associates
Date of hearing: 2 & 3 November 1995
Details
AGLC
Burazin v Blacktown City Guardian [1996] IRCA 387
Case
[1996] IRCA 387
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Burazin v Blacktown City Guardian, the applicant, Mara Burazin, sought compensation for the unlawful termination of her employment against the respondent, Blacktown City Guardian Pty Ltd. The matter was heard by Madgwick J in the Industrial Relations Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry. The primary legal issues in this case involved the interpretation of the meaning of "casual employee engaged for a short period" under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth), the applicability of compensation for unlawful termination, and the extent of damages for breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence.
The court considered whether the termination of Ms. Burazin's employment was lawful and if it was for a valid reason under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth). Additionally, the court assessed whether the termination was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if Ms. Burazin was entitled to compensation for distress, disappointment, anxiety, humiliation, and injured feelings not amounting to psychiatric illness. The court also examined whether there was an implied term of mutual trust and confidence in the employment contract and if damages were payable for its breach.
Madgwick J determined that Ms. Burazin was entitled to compensation for the unlawful termination of her employment under Division 3 of Part VIa of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth), as the termination was not for a valid reason and/or was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court found that the respondent breached the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence through its treatment of Ms. Burazin leading up to the termination. However, the court ruled that no compensable damage beyond what was provided for by the Act flowed from that breach. Consequently, the court declined to award additional damages for breach of contract, beyond the compensation provided under the Act.
The court ordered the respondent to pay compensation in the amount of $3,000.00 to the applicant, together with interest, within 14 days from the date of the judgment. This decision addressed the key issues of unlawful termination, the scope of compensation under the Act, and the implications of breaching the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence.