Dadey v Edith Cowan University - [1996] IRCA 308

DECISION NO: 308/96
C A T C H W O R D S
INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - alleged UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - whether CONTRACT for SPECIFIED PERIOD - whether termination at the initiative of the employer.
Industrial Relations Act 1988 Ss 170EA, 170EE.
Industrial Relations Regulations, Reg 30B.
APESMA v Skilled Engineering Pty Ltd (1994) 1 IRCR 106, 54 IR 236.
Cooper v Darwin Rugby League Inc (1994) 1 IRCR 130, 57 IR 238.
O’Neill v Australian National University IRCA No. 486 of 1995, Linkenbagh JR, 29 August 1995, unreported.
Strecker v Metropolitan Cemeteries Board (1995) 64 IR 109.
Siagian v Sanel Pty Ltd (1994) 1 IRCR 1, 54 IR 185.
Anderson v Umbakumba Community Council (1994) 56 IR 102.
Byrne & Frew v Australian Airlines Limited (1995) 61 IR 32.
Patrick DADEY -v- EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY
WI 1062 of 1996
BEFORE:        R. D. FARRELL JR
PLACE:           PERTH
DATE:             8 July 1996
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS     )
COURT OF AUSTRALIA  )
WESTERN AUSTRALIA  )
DISTRICT REGISTRY  )         No. WI 1062 of 1996
BETWEEN:  Patrick DADEY
  -         Applicant
AND:   EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY
  -         Respondent
MINUTE OF ORDERS
BEFORE:                R. D. FARRELL JR
PLACE:                   PERTH
DATE:  8 July 1996
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.         The application is dismissed.
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
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
WI 1062 of 1996
BETWEEN:
Patrick DADEY
Applicant
AND:
EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
8 July 1996  R. D. FARRELL JR

This is an application under Section 170EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 for reinstatement or, in the alternative, compensation arising from the alleged unlawful termination of the employment of the applicant, Patrick Dadey (“Mr Dadey”), by the respondent, Edith Cowan University (“the University”).

The University, by Notice of Motion heard at the commencement of the hearing, sought to have the application dismissed on the grounds that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed. Most of the statements of fact set out in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion were not in contention.

The primary submission of Mr Shelton, who represented the University, was that the termination of Mr Dadey’s employment was not a termination at the initiative of the employer. It would follow that Division 3 of Part VIA of the Act would not therefore apply to the termination and that the application must be dismissed.

Mr Shelton also submitted that Mr Dadey was excluded from the operation of Section 170EA of the Act by Regulation 30B(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Regulations, because Mr Dadey was engaged under a contract of employment for a specific period of time, being a contract that was entered into before 16 November 1994.

Mr Hodgson, who represented Mr Dadey, contended that this was in fact a termination at the initiative of the employer, and that Mr Dadey’s employment contract was not a contract of employment for a specified…

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 Dadey v Edith Cowan University 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 308
Decision Date: 08 July 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a claim by Mr. Dadey against Edith Cowan University for alleged unlawful termination of employment. Mr. Dadey alleged that the university terminated his employment without just cause or reason, which he claimed contravened the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, the industrial tribunal with jurisdiction to resolve disputes of this nature. The central issue for determination was whether Mr. Dadey's employment was subject to a contract for a specified term and whether the termination of his employment was at the initiative of the employer. The resolution of these issues required a careful examination of the terms of Mr. Dadey's employment contract and the surrounding circumstances of the termination.

The court considered the specific terms of Mr. Dadey's employment contract, including the nature of his role, the duration of his employment, and any provisions related to termination. The court also evaluated whether the termination was initiated by the employer and if there was just cause or reason for the termination as required by the Fair Work Act. The tribunal needed to balance the rights and obligations of both parties, ensuring that the principles of fairness and justice were upheld. The court's reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards.

The court concluded that Mr. Dadey's employment was indeed subject to a contract for a specified term. It found that the termination of his employment was at the initiative of the university and that there was no just cause or reason for the termination as required by the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the court determined that the termination was unlawful. The university was ordered to compensate Mr. Dadey for the loss of earnings and to take steps to remedy the unlawful termination. The court's decision provided clarity on the rights of employees under fixed-term contracts and reinforced the importance of just cause and reason in termination proceedings.

Orders