Cramer v SmithKline Beecham - [1997] FCA 606

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INDUSTRIAL LAW - termination of employment - incapacity - allergic reaction to products manufactured by employer - relocation of employees - reoccurrence of allergic reaction - medical recommendations for employment off site - inherent requirements of employment in a chemical manufacturing plant - valid reasons for termination

Workplace Relations Act 1996 ss.170DE, 170DF, 170EA

CASES:
Winter v Australian National Hotels (1995) 60 IR 316
Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics (1995) 62 IR 371
Nettlefold v Kym Smoker (1996) 69 IR 370

Kerr and Jaroma Pty Ltd (1996) 70 IR 469

CRAMER -v- SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

No. VI-1164 of 1997

VANGRAMBERG -v- SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

No. VI-1165 of 1997

Ryan JR
Melbourne
2 July 1997

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VI-1164 of 1997

B E T W E E N :

TRISETTE CRAMER
Applicant

AND

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM
Respondent

VI-1165 of 1997

B E T W E E N :

LORETTA VANGRAMBERG
Applicant

AND

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM
Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDERS

Judicial Registrar Ryan 2 July 1997

THE COURT ORDERS:

That the applications be dismissed.

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

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VI-1164 of 1997

B E T W E E N :

TRISETTE CRAMER
Applicant

AND

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM
Respondent

VI-1165 of 1997

B E T W E E N :

LORETTA VANGRAMBERG
Applicant

AND

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM
Respondent

Ryan JR
Melbourne
2 July 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered Ex Tempore - revised from Transcript)

The Applicants are sisters who worked for the Respondent at the Dandenong Chemical Plant. Both had their employment terminated on 19 November 1996. Both sought compensation in claims of unlawful termination of employment.

Early in the hearing, Mr Isles, counsel for the Applicants, indicated that the validity of the terminations would be attacked on several grounds including the failure of the Respondent to provide a penicillin-free environment. The Applicants had been diagnosed as penicillin sensitive. At this stage the Court raised the question of why the Applicants were not seeking reinstatement given the argument that the terminations were unlawful for reasons which included a failure to provide a penicillin-free environment and assertions that such an environment should have been provided. Counsel for the Applicants indicated that he had intended to apply at the commencement of the trial to amend the applications to seek reinstatement and he made an application to that effect. Reinstatement is the primary remedy and the applications were amended.

Ms Davis, counsel for the Respondent, tabled a chronology relating to the appointment, allergy-related relocations and termination of employment of both Applicants. The evidence confirms the general accuracy of the chronology. The judgment refers to some of the dates and events. Those events and dates which are not mentioned are accepted as having occurred on or about the dates and months outlined in the chronology.

Mrs Cramer and Mrs Vangramberg were employed in various production, packaging and clerical positions with the Respondent. Both began at…

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 Cramer v SmithKline Beecham 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] FCA 606
Decision Date: 2 July 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cramer versus SmithKline Beecham involved an employee who had an allergic reaction to products manufactured by their employer, a pharmaceutical company. The employee, Cramer, was terminated from their employment after a relocation did not prevent the reoccurrence of the allergic reaction. Cramer sought to challenge the termination, arguing it was unjust and contrary to their rights under employment law. The court was required to determine whether the termination was justified under the circumstances.

The legal issues centred on whether the employer had valid grounds to terminate Cramer's employment and whether the termination was a reasonable response to Cramer's incapacity. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the inherent requirements of the employment, such as the need to work in a chemical manufacturing plant, were incompatible with Cramer's medical condition. Additionally, the court examined whether the employer had explored all reasonable alternatives, such as redeploying Cramer to another site, before deciding to terminate the employment.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the employer had valid reasons for terminating Cramer's employment. The inherent requirements of working in a chemical manufacturing plant made it impossible for Cramer to continue in their role without risk to their health and safety. The court also found that the employer had taken reasonable steps to accommodate Cramer's medical condition, including relocating Cramer to a different site. However, the reoccurrence of the allergic reaction made continued employment untenable. The court concluded that the termination was reasonable and in accordance with employment law. The employer's decision was upheld, and Cramer's claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Orders