Crozier v AIRC

Case [2001] FCA 1031

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Crozier, in the matter of an application for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus against the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2001] FCA 1031

INDUSTRIAL LAW – whether termination of employment harsh, unjust or unreasonable – whether jurisdictional error in first respondents’ decision – factors to be considered under s 170CG(3) – whether valid reason for termination related to the capacity of employee – meaning of “capacity” – whether there can be valid reason related to capacity when employee is performing to his or her best ability but not satisfying job requirements – failure by employer to provide procedural fairness – matters of evidential weight and cogency for Full Bench

WORDS & PHRASES – “capacity”

Workplace Relations Act 1996, s 170CE(1)(a), s 170CG(3)

Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 applied

IN THE MATTER of an application for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus against VICE PRESIDENT ROSS, SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON and COMMISSIONER CRIBB (Members of a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission) AND PALAZZO CORPORATION PTY LTD  trading as NOBLE PARK STORAGE & TRANSPORT (ACN 006 471 834); Ex Parte PETER CROZIER
V 52 of 2001

GRAY, BRANSON & KENNY JJ
1 AUGUST 2001
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 52 OF 2001

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Writs Of Certiorari and Mandamus against:

VICE PRESIDENT ROSS
and
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON
and
COMMISSIONER CRIBB
(Members of a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission)
First Respondents

AND:

PALAZZO CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 006 471 834) trading as NOBLE PARK STORAGE & TRANSPORT

Second Respondent
EX PARTE: PETER CROZIER
Prosecutor/Applicant

JUDGES:

GRAY, BRANSON & KENNY JJ

DATE:

1 AUGUST 2001

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant file and serve written submissions on the question of costs within seven days of delivery of these reasons.

3.The second respondent file and serve any written submissions in reply within seven days of receipt of the applicant’s submissions on costs.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 52 OF 2001

IN THE MATTER of an Application for Writs Of Certiorari and Mandamus against:

VICE PRESIDENT ROSS
and
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT ACTON
and
COMMISSIONER CRIBB
(Members of a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission)
First Respondents

AND:

PALAZZO CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 006 471 834) trading as NOBLE PARK STORAGE & TRANSPORT

Second Respondent
EX PARTE: PETER CROZIER
Prosecutor/Applicant

JUDGES:

GRAY, BRANSON & KENNY JJ

DATE:

1 AUGUST 2001

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

the court:

  1. This proceeding was commenced in the High Court of Australia and has been remitted to this Court. Peter Crozier seeks writs of certiorari and mandamus directed to the first respondents. On 11 May 2000, the first respondents, as members of a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”),…

Continue reading Crozier v AIRC

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Crozier v AIRC [2001] FCA 1031
Case
[2001] FCA 1031
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crozier v AIRC involved Mr Crozier who brought an application against his former employer for unfair dismissal. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) was tasked with determining whether the termination of Mr Crozier’s employment was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under the Fair Work Act. Mr Crozier argued that his dismissal was unjust, while the employer contended that the termination was justified due to his failure to generate new business as required by his role.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether there was a valid reason for the termination related to Mr Crozier’s capacity or conduct, whether he was given adequate notice and opportunity to respond, and if the termination was aligned with the operational requirements of the employer's business. The court also had to consider if Mr Crozier had been sufficiently warned about any unsatisfactory performance prior to the termination.

In delivering the decision, the Commissioner found that while Mr Crozier was diligent and made efforts to develop new business, he had only successfully introduced business valued at $1300.00 during his employment period. Despite the employer’s concession that Mr Crozier was well-organised, hardworking, and had a professional approach, the Commissioner concluded that the lack of significant business development constituted a valid reason for termination related to the employer's operational needs. The Commissioner held that continuing Mr Crozier’s employment without a reasonable expectation of future returns would be economically detrimental to the employer. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the matter was referred to the parties for consideration of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant file and serve written submissions on the question of costs within seven days of delivery of these reasons.

3. The second respondent file and serve any written submissions in reply within seven days of receipt of the applicant’s submissions on costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Conciliation under s 170CF having failed, the Commission proceeded to arbitrate the matter brought by Mr Crozier under s 170CG of the Act. Subsection 170CG(3) provides:In determining, for the purposes of the arbitration, whether a termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission must have regard to:(a)whether there was a valid reason for the termination related to the capacity or conduct of the employee or to the operational requirements of the employer’s undertaking, establishment or service; and(b) whether the employee was notified of that reason; and(c)whether the employee was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the employee; and(d)if the termination related to unsatisfactory performance by the employee – whether the employee had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the termination; and(e) any other matters that the Commission considers relevant.background In 1998, the second respondent, who operated a commercial storage facility, advertised for a sales representative who “should be able to source and develop new business opportunities via new and existing clients … ”. Mr Crozier successfully applied for the position. The second respondent’s letter of offer advised him “the main focus of this position is to generate new business … ”. He accepted the offer and began work on 17 August 1998. He was paid a salary of $32,500 per annum and received a vehicle allowance of $200 per week. On 1 March 1999, however, the second respondent terminated his employment. This gave rise to Mr Crozier’s application to the Commission. The employer’s case before the Commission was that Mr Crozier had failed to obtain new business, as his position required. In his reasons for decision, Commissioner Simmonds noted that:It is common ground that during his employment with the company Mr Crozier was directly responsible for introducing business valued at $1300.00. There is no evidence that his work has led to the introduction of any other business. The employer conceded that Mr Crozier made contact with many potential clients, and there was no criticism of the effort he put into his job. Nonetheless, he rejected Mr Crozier’s application, saying:I am of the view that the training, assistance, advice and counselling provided may have been lacking perfection. However, Mr Crozier had considerable previous experience in the area as his application for employment discloses. Thus I consider the shortfall does not affect the validity of the reason for termination, particularly as it relates to the issue of operational requirements. The evidence of Mr Crozier, which was not seriously challenged by the company, is that he was well organised and hard working. He brought a professional approach to his job. Within the constraints imposed by his employer regarding pricing structures and available facilities he did his best, and his best could not be faulted. … .As noted, there is no dispute that Mr Crozier was responsible for bringing in only $1300.00 (gross) worth of business. Moreover, there can be no dispute that in a little over six months of employment the employer paid to Mr Crozier, directly and indirectly an amount in excess of $22,000.00. To continue that situation, in the absence of any expected return, would be an invitation to economic ruin. There was no evidence of any certainty of future return as a consequence of the work performed by Mr Crozier. In all of the above circumstances I am satisfied there was a valid reason connected with the operational requirements of the business for the company’s termination of Mr Crozier’s employment.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.