Legal Research
Cases
Jeavons v Entram Pty Ltd

Jeavons v Entram Pty Ltd

Case [2015] FCCA 3457 24 December 2015

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JEAVONS v ENTRAM PTY LTD

[2015] FCCA 3457

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Whether employer took adverse action for a proscribed reason within Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether the employee was entitled to a redundancy payment under s.119 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

CONTRACT – Whether summary dismissal was breach of an implied term in a contract of employment as to reasonable notice – whether the employee engaged in serious misconduct.

Legislation:
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.140
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.3, 4, 12, 22, 119, 122, 123, 340, 341, 342, 343, 346, 360, 361

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.76

BHP Coal Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2013) 219 FCR 245;[2013] FCAFC 132
Bibby Financial Services Australia Pty Ltd v Sharma [2014] NSWCA 37
Blyth Chemicals Limited v Bushnell (1933) 49 CLR 66; [1933] HCA 8
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500; [2012] HCA 32
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336;[1938] HCA 34
Byrnes v Treloar and Others (1997) 77 IR 332; [1997] NSWSC 629
Castel Electronics Pte Ltd v Toshiba Singapore Pty Ltd (2011) 192 FCR 445; [2011] FCAFC 55
Cohen v iSoft Group Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1071
Cohen v iSoft Group Pty Ltd (2013) 298 ALR 516; [2013] FCAFC 49
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169; [2014] HCA 32
Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell (2000) 176 ALR 693; [2000] HCA 64
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 243; [2014] HCA 41
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2012] FCA 697
Delooze v Healey [2007] WASCA 157
Devonshire v Magellan Powertronics Pty Ltd (2013) 275 FLR 273; [2013] FMCA 207
Driesen v Edith Cowan University [2012] FMCA 735
Evans v TriLab Pty Ltd [2014] FCCA 2464
Fountain and Another v Alexander and Another (1982) 150 CLR 615; [1982] HCA 16
Fox v Stowe Australia Pty Ltd (2012) 271 FLR 372; [2012] FMCA 976
Fryar v Systems Services Pty Ltd (1996) 137 ALR 321
General Motors-Holden Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 51 ALJR 235; (1976) 12 ALR 605
Harrison v In Control Pty Ltd (2013) 273 FLR 190; [2013] FMCA 149
Hill v Compass Ten Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2012] FCA 815
Hodkinson v Commonwealth (2011) 248 FLR 409; [2011] FMCA 171
HP Mercantile Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2005) 143 FCR 553; [2005] FCAFC 126
Huntley Management Limited and Another v Timbercorp Securities Ltd and Others (2010) 187 FCR 151; [2010] FCA 576
John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd v Federated Ironworkers; re York (1972) 14 AILR 517
Jones v Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre Ltd (No. 2) (2010) 186 FCR 22; [2010] FCA 399

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 Jeavons v Entram Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jeavons v Entram Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 3457
Case: [2015] FCCA 3457
Decision Date: 24 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jeavons (the applicant) brought proceedings against Entram Pty Ltd (the respondent) in the Federal Court of Australia, alleging that the respondent had taken adverse action against him for a proscribed reason under Part 3-1 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The applicant also claimed he was entitled to a redundancy payment under section 119 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). Additionally, the applicant contended that his summary dismissal constituted a breach of an implied term in his contract of employment regarding reasonable notice, arguing that he had not engaged in serious misconduct.

The court was required to determine whether the respondent had engaged in adverse action against the applicant for a prohibited reason, specifically whether the applicant's dismissal was motivated by his exercise of a workplace right. It also needed to consider whether the applicant was entitled to a redundancy payment under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the applicant's conduct amounted to serious misconduct, which would justify summary dismissal and negate any claim for a breach of an implied term of reasonable notice in his employment contract.

In its reasoning, the court found that the applicant had not established that the respondent took adverse action against him for a proscribed reason. The court determined that the applicant's dismissal was not linked to his exercise of a workplace right. Consequently, the claim for a redundancy payment under section 119 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) was dismissed. The court also concluded that the applicant's conduct did constitute serious misconduct, thereby justifying summary dismissal and meaning there was no breach of an implied term for reasonable notice.

Orders