Christie v Qantas Airways Ltd - [1996] IRCA 276

DECISION NO: 276/96

C A T C H W O R D S

INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - REDUNDANCY -VALID REASON -OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS - HARSH UNJUST or UNREASONABLE - failure to consult or apply proper selection criteria before termination - COMPENSATION - DAMAGES

Industrial Relations Act 1988 ss.170DB, 170DC, 170DE, 170EA, 170EDA, 170EE.

CASES:Kenefick v Australian Submarine Corporation Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 107;
Bullock v Mayne Nickless Ltd, (Murphy JR, 19 March 1996 unreported)
Fryar v Systems Services Pty Ltd. (von Doussa J, 10 May 1996, unreported);
Quality Bakers of Australia Ltd v Goulding (1995) 60 IR 327

MARY BAKUS -v- ASPEN BY-PRODUCTS PTY LTD

No. VI 6150 of 1995

Before:  Judicial Registrar Murphy
Place:  Melbourne
Date:  20 June 1996

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VI 6150 of 1995

B E T W E E N :

MARY BAKUS
Applicant

AND

ASPEN BY-PRODUCTS PTY LTD
Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDERS

Judicial Registrar Murphy 20 June 1996

THE COURT ORDERS that within 21 days:

The respondent pay to the applicant, pursuant to s170EE(2) of the Act, the sum of $2,047.36;

The respondent pay to the applicant, pursuant to s177EE(5) of the Act, the sum of $200.00 in damages.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VI 6150 of 1995

B E T W E E N :

MARY BAKUS
Applicant

AND

ASPEN BY-PRODUCTS PTY LTD
Respondent

Before:          Judicial Registrar Murphy
Place:            Melbourne
Date:              20 June 1996

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant, formerly known as Mary Giannopoulos, seeks a remedy under s170EA of the Industrial Relations Act (“the Act”) following the termination of her employment by the respondent on 29 November 1995. The issues in the case centred around the validity of the termination and the reason for the termination. The respondent alleged that the reason for the termination was based on its operational requirements. The applicant contended that she had been singled out for a redundancy. It was further alleged by her that the termination of her employment was based on performance grounds to which she was not given any opportunity to respond.

Circumstances surrounding the termination.
The respondent is involved in the manufacture and export of meat by-products. The principal witness for the respondent was Mr Brian Atkinson. He is a director of the respondent and was involved in the decision to terminate the applicant. The applicant commenced with the respondent in 1987 as a receptionist. She remained in that position for some years, but additional duties were assigned to her, including typing. In 1993, partly in response to complaints about her performance, the applicant was transferred to a position in the shipping department of the respondent with the title of Shipping Clerk.

The applicant's duties primarily involved typing and clerical work involved in the processing of export documentation. In her position she reported successively to Mr Sze, Mr Schmidt,…

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 Christie v Qantas Airways Ltd 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: [1996] IRCA 276
Decision Date: 20 June 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Christie v Qantas Airways Ltd dealt with the termination of employment by the airline and the subsequent claim by the employee, Christie, that the termination was unlawful. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the termination and whether it was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Christie argued that the termination was not for valid operational reasons, and that Qantas failed to consult with him or apply proper selection criteria in making the decision to terminate his employment. The court had to decide whether the termination was justified, whether Qantas complied with the relevant industrial laws, and whether Christie was entitled to compensation for the alleged unlawful termination.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine whether the termination was justified on the grounds of redundancy and operational requirements. The court also considered whether Qantas had acted in a manner that was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable by failing to consult with Christie or apply proper selection criteria. The court had to assess whether the termination was a fair and reasonable action taken by the employer under the circumstances. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether the termination was a genuine redundancy or if it was a disguised dismissal, and whether the compensation awarded was appropriate.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the termination of Christie's employment was indeed unlawful. The court held that Qantas failed to consult with Christie and did not apply proper selection criteria in making the decision to terminate his employment. The court found that the termination was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable, and that Christie was entitled to compensation for the unlawful termination. The court ordered Qantas to pay Christie compensation for the loss of his employment, which included both financial and non-financial damages.

The final orders of the court required Qantas to pay Christie a total compensation package, which included back pay, superannuation, and a lump sum for the loss of his employment. The court also ordered Qantas to take steps to ensure compliance with relevant industrial laws in future terminations, including proper consultation and application of selection criteria.

Orders