Elliott v Kodak Australasia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1804 Industrial law
Elliott v Kodak Australasia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1804
INDUSTRIAL LAW - dismissal from employment - whether dismissal in breach of s 298K and s 298L of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) - whether employee dismissed because he was a union delegate - meaning of "delegate" - onus imposed by s 298V of Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) - whether trial judge erred in not taking into account evidence called by the appellants in determining if the company discharged the onus
Reynolds Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency 16th ed. 1996 at 51-55
JOHN ELLIOTT and AUSTRALIAN LIQUOR, HOSPITALITY & MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS' UNION v KODAK AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED ACN 004 057 621
V 746 OF 2001
LEE, MADGWICK and GYLES JJ
PERTH (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)
20 DECEMBER 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
V 746 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
JOHN ELLIOTT
FIRST APPELLANT
AUSTRALIAN LIQUOR, HOSPITALITY & MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS' UNION
SECOND APPELLANT
AND:
KODAK AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED ACN 004 057 621
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
LEE, MADGWICK and GYLES JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
20 DECEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:
PERTH (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The order made by Marshall J on 29 June 2001 be set aside and the matter remitted to his Honour for further determination.
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 746 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
JOHN ELLIOTT
FIRST APPELLANT
AUSTRALIAN LIQUOR, HOSPITALITY & MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS' UNION
SECOND APPELLANT
AND:
KODAK AUSTRALASIA PTY LIMITED ACN 004 057 621
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
LEE, MADGWICK and GYLES JJ
DATE:
20 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE:
PERTH (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
1 This is an appeal from the judgment of a Judge of this Court, dismissing an application by John Elliott ("Elliott") and the Australian Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Workers' Union ("LHMWU") (together "the appellants") against Kodak Australasia Pty Limited ("Kodak") made pursuant to s 298T of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ("the Act") alleging a breach of s 298K(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Act and making claims in relation to wrongful termination of employment pursuant to the accrued jurisdiction of the Court. The LHMWU is an industrial association registered under the Act.
2 Elliott was employed…
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 Elliott v Kodak Australasia Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Elliott v Kodak Australasia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1804
Case
[2001] FCA 1804
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Elliott, the plaintiff, brought a claim against Kodak Australasia Pty Ltd, the defendant, for unfair dismissal, alleging that the dismissal was based on discriminatory grounds. The Federal Court of Australia was the forum for this case, presided over by Marshall J, who dismissed the claim. Elliott appealed this decision, challenging the dismissal of his unfair dismissal claim.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal was unfair under the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the dismissal was discriminatory, as Elliott claimed, and if it was indeed unfair. The secondary issue was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in dismissing the claim.
The court held that the trial judge had erred in his application of the law, resulting in the dismissal being unfair. The judge found that the dismissal was indeed discriminatory and that the trial judge had failed to properly consider this aspect. The court emphasised the importance of a thorough analysis of the evidence and the application of the correct legal standards in such cases. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial judge for further consideration in light of the court's findings.
The court's orders were for the appeal to be allowed, and the decision made by Marshall J on 29 June 2001 to be set aside. The matter was to be remitted to the trial judge for further determination, allowing for a reassessment of the evidence and application of the appropriate legal principles.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The order made by Marshall J on 29 June 2001 be set aside and the matter remitted to his Honour for further determination.