Griffin v Australian Postal Corporation - [1998] IRCA 15

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INDUSTRIAL LAW - complaint of UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - whether employment terminated at initiative of employer or by effluxion of time - whether termination for the prohibited reason of age - whether applicant’s employment terminated at age 65 by legislative prescription - whether award provision limiting duration of applicant’s employment to age 65 was inconsistent with requirements of Termination of Employment Convention - whether termination constituted discrimination contrary to Part 4E Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)

Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) ss 3, 170CA, 170CB, 170DE, 170DF, 170EA, 170HA, 416, Sch 10, Arts 4 & 5, Sch 11, Art 5
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 416
Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 (Cth) ss 3, 89, 90, 90A, 90B
Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 (Cth) ss 170HA
Postal Services Act 1975 (Cth) ss 3, 41, 42, 57
Postal Services Amendment Act 1988 (Cth) ss 5, 12, 28
Telecommunications and Postal Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1989 (Cth) s 75
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Part 4E

Australia Post General Conditions of Employment Award 1989 cl 36(a)(iii); cl 5

ILO 67th Session 1981, Report VIII(1) Termination of Employment at the Initiative of the Employer
ILO 1995 General Survey on the Termination of Employment Convention (N0 158) and Recommendation (No 166) 1982

State of Victoria v Commonwealth of Australia (1996) 187 CLR 416 - considered
Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics (1995) 62 IR 371 - cited
Qantas Airways Limited v Christie (1998) 152 ALR 365 - considered
Fisher v Edith Cowan University (1997) 72 IR 464 - cited
Grout v Gunnedah Shire Council (1994) 1 IRCR 143 - cited
Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 142 ALR 331 - cited
Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd (No.2) (1995) 62 IR 200 - cited
T A Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd v Haylor (1957) 97 CLR 177 - applied

STANLEY EDWARD GRIFFIN v THE AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
NI 4259 of 1995

SPENDER, VON DOUSSA & MARSHALL JJ
BRISBANE (heard in Sydney)
1 JUNE 1998

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF

AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NI 4259 of 1995

BETWEEN:

STANLEY EDWARD GRIFFIN
Applicant

AND:

THE AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent

JUDGE(S):

SPENDER, VON DOUSSA & MARSHALL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

1 JUNE 1998

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE (heard in Sydney)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed.

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

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NI 4259 of 1995

BETWEEN:

STANLEY EDWARD GRIFFIN
Applicant

AND:

THE AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent

JUDGE(S):

SPENDER, VON DOUSSA & MARSHALL JJ

DATE:

1 JUNE 1998

PLACE:

BRISBANE (heard in Sydney)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SPENDER J:
The facts and some of the relevant statutory provisions are contained in the reasons for judgment of Marshall J, which relieves me of the need to repeat them. There is, however, no express reference in his Honour’s reasons to Article 3…

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 Griffin v Australian Postal Corporation 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: [1998] IRCA 15
Decision Date: 1 Jun 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Industrial Relations Court of Australia, the case of Griffin v Australian Postal Corporation was heard and determined. The applicant, Stanley Edward Griffin, sought a remedy for what he alleged to be the unlawful termination of his employment by the Australian Postal Corporation. The central issue before the court was whether the termination of Griffin's employment was at the initiative of the employer or occurred due to the effluxion of time, specifically whether the termination was for the prohibited reason of age. The court found that the termination was not at the initiative of the employer, but rather due to the expiry of the term of Griffin's employment as specified in the Australia Post General Conditions of Employment Award 1989. The court held that the termination did not constitute discrimination contrary to Part 4E of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) because the award provision limiting the duration of Griffin's employment to age 65 was not inconsistent with the requirements of the Termination of Employment Convention. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 170EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.

Orders