Franklins Ltd v Pearson - [1997] IRCA 288

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - review of decision of judicial registrar - whether extension of time should be granted - goods of no value belonging to employer taken by employee without permission - employee failed to allow employer to inspect goods - whether employer had a VALID REASON to terminate the employment - whether essential condition of contract of service repudiated

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s 170DE, s 170EA

Nelson v Scholle Industries (1995) 64 IR 9, distinguished
North v Television Corporation Ltd (1976) 11 ALR 599, applied

FRANKLINS LTD v GEOFFREY ROBERT PEARSON
NI 2286 of 1995

MADGWICK J
SYDNEY
4 NOVEMBER 1997

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT

OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NI 2286 of 1995

BETWEEN:

FRANKLINS LTD
APPLICANT

AND:

GEOFFREY ROBERT PEARSON
RESPONDENT

JUDGE(S):

MADGWICK J

DATE:

4 NOVEMBER 1997

PLACE:

SYDNEY

SHORT MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The decision of the judicial registrar be set aside.

The original application be dismissed.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT

OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NI 2286 of 1995

BETWEEN:

FRANKLINS LTD
APPLICANT

AND:

GEOFFREY ROBERT PEARSON
RESPONDENT

JUDGE(S):

MADGWICK J

DATE:

4 NOVEMBER 1997

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The respondent, Mr Pearson, had been employed by the applicant company as a forklift driver at its Chullora warehouse for 6½ years. In the early morning of 12 January 1995 an incident which involved Mr Pearson taking some damaged work clothing from the warehouse without permission led to the company terminating Mr Pearson’s employment later that day. Mr Pearson lodged an application, out of time, under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) (as it was then called) on the ground that his employment had been unlawfully terminated. A judicial registrar found that, in the circumstances, the Court should exercise its discretion to allow the application to proceed out of time. The judicial registrar also found that the company did not have a valid reason to terminate Mr Pearson’s employment, and awarded reinstatement and compensation for lost wages. This is a review of that decision under s 377 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the Act”).

Background to the Review

The relevant facts, which were not in dispute, are as follows. Approximately ten minutes before the end of Mr Pearson’s night shift, he was seen by a security officer via surveillance cameras to take two bags from the applicant’s warehouse and put them in his car. At the end of his shift, Mr Pearson drove his vehicle to the bundy area of the warehouse to “clock off”, and when he returned to his vehicle Mr Eddy, the assistant afternoon shift manager, and Mr Renton, a shift supervisor, were waiting to speak to him about the content of the bags. Mr Pearson was told that he had been observed putting something into the trunk of his car, to which he replied that the bags contained old freezer clothing that had been discarded as…

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 Franklins Ltd v Pearson 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] IRCA 288
Decision Date: 04 November 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Franklins Ltd v Pearson, the respondent, Pearson, was an employee of Franklins Ltd, the appellant. The matter was brought before the court to review a decision of the judicial registrar concerning the termination of Pearson’s employment. The crux of the dispute was whether the employer had a valid reason to terminate Pearson's employment, and if the extension of time for filing an application should be granted. The key issue revolved around the taking of goods belonging to the employer by Pearson without permission, and Pearson's subsequent refusal to allow the employer to inspect those goods.

The court had to determine whether the employer's decision to terminate Pearson's employment was justified and whether the employer had a valid reason to do so. The court also had to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time for filing the application. The employer argued that Pearson had taken goods of no value belonging to the employer without permission and had refused to allow the employer to inspect the goods, which constituted a valid reason for termination. The court examined the employer’s evidence and the respondent's denial of the allegations.

The court found that the employer had a valid reason to terminate Pearson’s employment due to the unauthorized taking of goods and the refusal to allow inspection. The court acknowledged the employer’s right to inspect the goods and Pearson’s refusal to comply with this request. The court also held that there were no exceptional circumstances to grant an extension of time for filing the application. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to review the decision of the judicial registrar.

Orders