Hadley Massey v Hedel Holdings Pty Limited
[1995] IRCA 514
•30 June 1995
CATCHWORDS
INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - VALID REASON - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1988 , ss170EA, 170DC, 170DE
HADLEY MASSEY v HEDEL HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
No. VI95/1793
BEFORE: BOULTON JR
PLACE: BRISBANE
DATE: 30 JUNE 1995
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS )
COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. VI 95/1793
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
BETWEEN: HADLEY MASSEY
Applicant
AND: HEDEL HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
Respondent
MINUTE OF ORDERS
BEFORE: BOULTON JR
PLACE: BRISBANE
DATE: 30 JUNE 1995
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders are dealt with in Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS )
COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. VI 95/1793
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
BETWEEN: HADLEY MASSEY
Applicant
AND: HEDEL HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
Respondent
BEFORE: BOULTON JR
PLACE: BRISBANE
DATE: 30 JUNE 1995
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The respondent is a manufacturer of domestic and commercial fabrics at its factory premises at Acacia Ridge, Brisbane. The applicant, now aged 29, took up employment with it in mid May 1990 as a weaver. He later became a loom tuner. The respondent terminated his employment on 6 February 1995.
As part of the duties of his employment, the applicant was obliged to engage in record keeping, including the reporting to the shift subsequent to his of any problems encountered in production on his shift. That he was deficient in both record keeping and reporting was not really in dispute at trial.
The respondent's production manager, a Christa Vandewiele, gave evidence before me. She impressed me as a witness. Generally, where there is any conflict between her evidence and that of the applicant, I prefer her evidence.
Ms Vandewiele kept extensive records relating to the applicant's own record keeping and his reporting to subsequent shifts. On the occasions that she had to counsel the applicant after some error or lack of reporting on his part, she produced a memo recording the relevant event, a copy of which on most occasions the applicant was given.
I am satisfied that between early September 1993 and early February 1995 there were eight instances of conduct on the applicant's part which required Ms Vandewiele's intervention in the form of counselling or a warning. These occasions were all documented. Additionally, the applicant made 14 errors in loom pick recordings between late September 1994 and late January 1995. Each of these was brought to his attention soon after they occurred. These errors were excessive. Other loom tuners employed by the respondent made perhaps one or two errors in the same period. The respondent compiled its production records and costings from the recorded loom pick figures.
In late November 1994 the respondent had to chase the applicant to complete an employee declaration form for the Australian Taxation Office, and to pay to it a small sum of money related to the purchase of footwear.
On 25 January 1995, following the applicant's failure to properly report a loom problem to the shift subsequent to his, Ms Vandewiele gave him a memo which, amongst other things, reaffirmed what she had told him in a meeting earlier that day, namely the need to follow instructions given to him to secure his employment.
On Friday, 3 February 1995 the applicant was instructed to close the factory's fire doors at the end of his shift. He forgot. By his action he put at risk of fire stock and machinery of a value perhaps in excess of $5M. The risk of fire was heightened at this time by welding work going on in the factory premises. There was evidence which suggested that despite his having remembered not closing the fire doors before he drove away from the premises at the end of his shift, he could not be bothered getting out of his car to do so. On the state of the evidence, I am not prepared to make a positive finding to this effect, although being left with some misgivings about the matter.
The respondent learnt of the open fire doors on the morning of the following day. On Monday, 6 February 1995 when the applicant arrived at the start of his 2 pm-10 pm shift, he was called to a meeting with Ms Vandewiele and a Mr Wall, an electrical fitter/mechanic employed by the respondent. Ms Vandewiele raised the matter of the open fire doors with the applicant, and also dealt with his previous performance as an employee in a general way. She then told the applicant that his employment was terminated. He left the premises, and within a week or so received three weeks pay in conformity with para 170DB(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988. The applicant has since gained and kept other employment.
Shortly after the meeting of 6 February 1995 Ms Vandewiele produced a memo (ex R12) recording, in summary form, what had transpired during it. She recorded that the applicant said that he understood the reasons for his termination and did not feel too perturbed about it. The meeting lasted about ¾ of an hour.
I accept Ms Vandewiele when she asserted that it was an accumulation of the applicant's previous performance problems, and the non-closure of the fire doors, which caused her to decide to terminate his employment.
On behalf of the applicant it was asserted that his termination was in some way linked with the fact that he had been selected for training by the Textile Clothing & Footwear Union of Australia as a union delegate. No proper basis was laid for this allegation, and I reject it.
I am satisfied that the respondent had a valid reason, within the meaning of ss 170DE(1) of the Act, for the termination of the applicant's employment. His termination was not otherwise harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
The applicant was given an adequate opportunity to defend himself at the meeting of 6 February. On behalf of the applicant it was suggested that the respondent ought, on each previous occasion of counselling, to have warned the applicant that his job was in jeopardy. I reject the need for such a mechanical approach. Each case must depend on its own circumstances. The applicant was accorded procedural fairness in the manner of his termination.
There remains only one other matter. The Act is liberal in allowing legally unqualified persons to appear on behalf of others. While this is no bad thing, the utility of it is lost when persons appear who do not adequately understand the process of presenting a case on behalf of a party. In this case, it is highly unlikely that different representation would have meant a different result. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that there is a limit to the amount of assistance the court can properly offer in the running of a case for a party.
I order that the application be dismissed.
I certify that this and the preceding THREE (3) pages are a true copy of my Reasons for Judgment.
Judicial Registrar:
Date: 30 June 1995
Appearing for the Applicant: Mr Morel
Appearing for the Respondent: Mr Ward
Date of hearing: 27 June 1995
Date of judgment: 30 June 1995
0
0
0