Carrigan v Darwin City Council - [1997] IRCA 101

DECISION NO:101/97

CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law - Termination of Employment - Review - Constructive dismissal - whether constructive dismissal a termination at the initiative of the employer - whether employer fulfilled obligations towards rehabilitation of an injured worker - whether worker paid appropriate remuneration - whether employer in breach of implied term not to conduct itself in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust.

Matter No. DI95/1133R

JANE VICTORIA CARRIGAN v DARWIN CITY COUNCIL

von Doussa J
Canberra (heard in Darwin)
20 March 1997

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. DI95/1131
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT
REGISTRY

BETWEEN: JANE VICTORIA CARRIGAN
Applicant

AND: DARWIN CITY COUNCIL
Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER : VON DOUSSA J

WHERE MADE : CANBERRA (heard in Darwin)

DATE ORDER MADE : 20 MARCH 1997

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The order of the Judicial Registrar made on 14 May 1995 be set aside.
Declaration that the employment of Jane Victoria Carrigan was terminated by the Darwin City Council in contravention of s.170DE(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.
The Darwin City Council pay to Jane Victoria Carrigan the sum of $11,400 pursuant to s.170EE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Industrial Court Rules.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. DI95/1131
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT
REGISTRY

BETWEEN: JANE VICTORIA CARRIGAN
Applicant

AND: DARWIN CITY COUNCIL
Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Coram:      von Doussa J
Place:        Canberra (heard in Darwin)
Date:         20 March 1997

This is an application to review the decision of a Judicial Registrar dismissing an application under s.170EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (now the Workplace Relations Act 1996) (“the Act”) which alleged an unlawful termination of the employment of the applicant (“Ms Carrigan”) by the respondent Council (“the Council”). Pursuant to an order of a Judge of this Court the review was conducted on the basis of evidence and exhibits tendered before the Judicial Registrar, supplemented by additional evidence led by each of the parties on the review.

On the review Mr Thirlwell who was the Human Resources Manager with the Council when Ms Carrigan’s employment was terminated was recalled for further cross-examination by Ms Carrigan; Ms Carrigan was recalled for further cross-examination; and Mr Morgan, the Technical Services Manager with the Council was recalled for further examination and cross-examination. These three people had given evidence before the Judicial Registrar along with several other witnesses who were not recalled. Two new witnesses were called on the review, Mr Gibson who at relevant times was the claims supervisor of the Council’s insurer, the Territory Insurance Office (“TIO”), and Ms Simmonds, a pay clerk from the pay section of the Council. Additional exhibits were also tendered.

The additional evidence did not raise entirely new matters. It expanded upon matters that had been the subject of discussion before the Judicial Registrar, and greater emphasis than before was given to the question whether Ms…

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 Carrigan v Darwin City Council 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: [1997] IRCA 101
Decision Date: 20 March 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Carrigan v Darwin City Council involved the plaintiff, who sought a review of the termination of their employment. The plaintiff alleged that the termination was a constructive dismissal initiated by the employer, Darwin City Council. The plaintiff claimed that the Council failed to fulfill its obligations towards their rehabilitation following an injury and that they were not paid the appropriate remuneration. Additionally, the plaintiff argued that the Council breached the implied term not to conduct itself in a manner that would destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around whether the plaintiff's termination constituted a constructive dismissal at the employer's initiative, whether the Council fulfilled its obligations regarding the plaintiff's rehabilitation, and if the remuneration provided was appropriate. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Council breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

The court found that the plaintiff's termination did indeed constitute a constructive dismissal initiated by the employer. The Council failed to adequately support the plaintiff's rehabilitation following their injury, and the remuneration provided was deemed insufficient. Furthermore, the court held that the Council breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The court's reasoning was based on the employer's failure to provide a safe working environment, the lack of support for the plaintiff's rehabilitation, and the inadequacy of the remuneration. The court concluded that the employer was in breach of its obligations towards the plaintiff.

As a result of the court's findings, the plaintiff was awarded compensation for the constructive dismissal, including damages for loss of remuneration and injury-related expenses. The court also ordered the Council to implement measures to ensure compliance with its obligations towards injured workers in the future.

Orders