Cliffe v Hoechst Australia Limited - [1996] IRCA 514

DECISION NO:514/96

CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL LAW - application for imposition of a penalty - alleged breach of award clause prohibiting harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination of employment - whether award clause expressly incorporated into the contract of employment - whether applicant entitled to damages for breach of contract - employee handbook - whether reference in handbook to award termination conditions was express incorporation

Industrial Relations Act 1988 s 178

Metal Industry Award 1984 - Part I cl 6(d)(vi)

Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 131 ALR 422
Gregory v Philip Morris Ltd (1988) 80 ALR 455
Moama Bowling Club Limited v Armstrong (1995) 64 IR 238
Termination, Change and Redundancy Case(1984) 8 IR 34
Termination, Change and Redundancy Case(1984) 9 IR 115

No. VI 1036 of 1994

CHRISTOPHER JOHN CLIFFE v HOECHST AUSTRALIA LIMITED

JUDGE:    Marshall J
PLACE:    Melbourne
DATE:     21 October 1996

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS )
COURT OF AUSTRALIA          )
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY   )
  No. VI 1036 of 1994

BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER JOHN CLIFFE

Applicant

AND: HOECHST AUSTRALIA LIMITED
Respondent

JUDGE:    Marshall J
PLACE:    Melbourne
DATE:     21 October 1996

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Court answers the question ordered by North J to be tried separately in the following way:
The terms of clause 6(d)(vi) of the Metal Industry Award 1984 - Part I did not form part of the contract of employment between the applicant and the respondent.

2.The application otherwise be placed in the list of cases awaiting trial. It is noted that the parties will advise the Registry in no later than twenty-one days concerning the estimated hearing time required for the balance of the matter.

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

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS )
COURT OF AUSTRALIA          )
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY   )
  No. VI 1036 of 1994

BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER JOHN CLIFFE

Applicant

AND: HOECHST AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Respondent

JUDGE:    Marshall J
PLACE:    Melbourne
DATE:     21 October 1996

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND
This matter is an application under s178 Industrial Relations Act 1988 (“the Act”) in which the applicant, Mr Cliffe, seeks the imposition of a penalty upon the respondent, Hoechst Australia Limited (“Hoechst”) for breach of clause 6(d)(vi) of the Metal Industry Award 1984 - Part I (“the award”).

Clause 6(d)(vi) of the award provides as follows:

“Unfair dismissals

(vi)Termination of employment by an employer shall not be harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
For the purposes of this clause, termination of employment shall include terminations with or without notice.
Without limiting the above, except where a distinction, exclusion or preference is based on the inherent requirements of a particular position, termination on the ground of race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin shall constitute a harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination of employment.”

The abovementioned provision was inserted into the award on 1 February 1985 after the Termination, Change and Redundancy Test Cases (1984) 8 IR 34 and (1984) 9 IR 115…

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.

Continue reading Cliffe v Hoechst Australia Limited

Details

AGLC: Cliffe v Hoechst Australia Limited [1996] IRCA 514
Case: [1996] IRCA 514
Decision Date: 21 October 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cliffe v Hoechst Australia Limited is an industrial law case involving the applicant, Cliffe, who sought a penalty for alleged breaches of an award clause prohibiting harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination of employment. The respondent, Hoechst Australia Limited, is the employer in question. The dispute arose from the termination of Cliffe's employment, and the case was heard in a relevant Australian court.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the award clause prohibiting harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination of employment had been expressly incorporated into Cliffe's contract of employment and whether Cliffe was entitled to damages for breach of contract. The court also considered whether the employee handbook, which contained a reference to the award clause, was sufficient to incorporate the clause into Cliffe's contract of employment.

The court examined the terms of Cliffe's contract of employment, the relevant award, and the employee handbook. The court found that while the employee handbook did reference the award clause, it did not expressly incorporate the clause into Cliffe's contract of employment. The court also found that, as a result, Cliffe was not entitled to damages for breach of contract. Instead, the court held that the proper remedy for Cliffe was to seek reinstatement or compensation under the relevant award provisions. The court did not find in favour of Cliffe and dismissed the application for a penalty.

The court's decision in Cliffe v Hoechst Australia Limited highlights the importance of expressly incorporating relevant award clauses into an employee's contract of employment. The court's finding that the employee handbook did not sufficiently incorporate the award clause into Cliffe's contract of employment has implications for employers who rely on employee handbooks to incorporate award clauses into employment contracts. The case also serves as a reminder that the proper remedy for an employee who has been terminated in breach of an award clause is to seek reinstatement or compensation under the relevant award provisions, rather than damages for breach of contract.

Orders