FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Galvin v Renito Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1005
INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - unlawful termination - proscribed reason - onus of proof - whether employment terminated for reasons including physical and mental disability; performance as a reason for termination
Workplace Relations Act 1996 ss170CE, 170CK, 170CM, 170CQ
Industrial Relations Act 1988 ss170DF, 170EDA
Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 s5(4)Mohazab -v- Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd (No 2) (1995) 62 IR 200 applied
Rheinberger -v- Huxley Marketing Pty Ltd (1996) 67 IR 154 appliedHeidt v Chrysler Australia Ltd (1976) 26 FLR 257cited
Johns v Gunns Ltd (1995) 60 IR 258 followed
Atkins v Kirkstall-Repco Pty Ltd (1957) 3 FLR 439 cited
Stojanovic -v- The Commonwealth Club Ltd (Industrial Relations Court of Australia, unreported, 8 December 1995) applied
General Motors Holden Pty Ltd -v- Bowling (1976) 12 ALR 605 citedJOSHUA GALVIN v RENITO PTY LTD
VG 729 of 1998RYAN JR
MELBOURNE
26 JULY 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 729 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
JOSHUA GALVIN
ApplicantAND:
RENITO PTY LTD
RespondentJUDICIAL REGISTRAR:
RYAN
DATE OF ORDER:
26 JULY 1999
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application and claim of unlawful termination of the employment is dismissed.
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
VG 729 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
JOSHUA GALVIN
ApplicantAND:
RENITO PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:
RYAN
DATE:
26 JULY 1999
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
On 17 September 1998 the applicant applied in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for relief in respect of termination of employment and identified the grounds on which the application was based as
· s170CE(1) - harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination
· s170CK - discrimination or other prohibited reasons
· s170CM - failure to give statutory notice.
On 14 December 1998 Senior Deputy President Watson issued a certificate to the effect that attempts to settle the matter by conciliation had been or were likely to be unsuccessful. On 15 December the applicant's solicitors issued a notice electing to begin proceedings in the Court for an order under s170CR in respect of alleged contravention of s170CK.
On 23 December the applicant signed and his solicitors filed a claim of unlawful termination of employment under s170CP. The claimant sought as remedy
· compensation
· written reference
· penalty.
The claim was accompanied by a Form 5 application which gave details of claim as follows:
"On the grounds stated in the accompanying Claim of Unlawful Termination of Employment in accordance with Form 5A, the applicant claims:
1. An order imposing on the employer a penalty under s170CR(1)(a);
2.An order requiring the employer to pay the applicant an amount of compensation under s170CR(1)(c)."
Grounds for Claim of Unlawful Termination
The claim, the accompanying claim Form 5A, did not in fact state grounds. The first indication or hint of a…
Continue reading Galvin v Renito Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Galvin v Renito Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1005
- Case
- [1999] FCA 1005
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the facts surrounding the plaintiff's employment, including his role as a director and shareholder, his responsibilities, and his conduct leading up to the termination. It considered the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 relevant to unfair dismissal claims, including the requirement to provide a valid reason for termination and the consideration of the employee's incapacity and disability. The court found that the plaintiff's termination was not unlawful as the defendant had provided a valid reason for the dismissal, namely the plaintiff's failure to meet his contractual obligations and duties. The court also determined that the plaintiff's incapacity and disability did not protect him from the consequences of his failure to fulfill his role.
Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for a declaration of unlawful termination of employment and his claim for compensation. The court held that the defendant had acted reasonably and in accordance with the law in terminating the plaintiff's employment, and the plaintiff's incapacity and disability did not provide a sufficient basis for finding the dismissal to be unlawful. The court also found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any evidence of discrimination or unfair treatment based on his disability. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application and claim in its entirety.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application and claim of unlawful termination of the employment is dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
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.