Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Employment – dismissal – alleged contravention of general protection provisions of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether payment in lieu of notice – whether implied term.
[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.
Continue reading Carrabba v PFP (Aust) Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Carrabba v PFP (Aust) Pty Ltd [2019] FCCA 2857
Case
[2019] FCCA 2857
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Carrabba v PFP (Aust) Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Mr Carrabba, alleged that his dismissal by the respondent, PFP (Aust) Pty Ltd, constituted a contravention of the general protection provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Carrabba was entitled to payment in lieu of notice upon the termination of his employment, and if so, whether such a term was implied into his contract of employment.
The court was required to determine whether the termination of Mr Carrabba's employment was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether the respondent had contravened the general protections provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). A key aspect of this determination involved ascertaining whether there was an implied term in Mr Carrabba's employment contract entitling him to payment in lieu of notice, and if such a term existed, whether the respondent had breached it.
Judge Lucev found that there was no express term in Mr Carrabba's contract of employment providing for payment in lieu of notice. Furthermore, his Honour concluded that, in the absence of express terms, there was no implied term that would entitle Mr Carrabba to such payment. Consequently, the court held that the respondent had not breached any contractual obligation regarding notice. The application was dismissed.