Jodie Marie Harris and Pal Geotechnical Pty Ltd

[1995] IRCA 275

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

NO.  QI  233/94

BETWEEN:

JODIE MARIE HARRIS

Applicant

AND:

PAL GEOTECHNICAL PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore - revised
from the transcript)

BOULTON J.R.

The applicant now aged 23 was employed by the respondent performing secretarial, receptionist and clerical work from 22 February 1994.  Her employment came to an end on 8 November 1994.

In early November 1994, the applicant was asked to sign what was called a letter of offer of continuing employment by which she expressly

-2-

agreed to undertake the requirements of her position as set out in an attached job specification. The latter document included references to responsibilities which the applicant claimed went beyond those associated with her job to that time.  It also contained in a section headed, Qualifications, a reference to “Christian ethics and ability to support ethos of the organisation”.  The applicant had felt under some pressure at work to join in religious activities in which the directors of the respondent were involved.

I find that the applicant’s concerns about training for the added responsibilities were met.  Her request, however, for the removal, before she signed, of the words relating to Christian ethics was denied.  Upon her failure to sign the letter of offer the general manager of the respondent, a Mr. Lye, then handed her a handwritten letter which stated, inter alia, that her employment was terminated with effect from 8 November 1994.  The same fate befell a fellow employee one Janelle Kennedy.

There was agreement that the applicant was given appropriate compensation in lieu of notice.

-3-

The case on behalf of the respondent was a curious one.  It was that the applicant’s concerns about her job specification were met in full, but despite this she refused, inexplicably, to sign the letter of offer and, in effect, abandoned her employment.  I find it implausible that if the respondent had assuaged the applicant’s concerns she would, in the face of this offer, have effectively resigned.  I reject the evidence called on behalf of the respondent to this effect.

In the absence of resignation the respondent could only justify the action it took by pointing to some misconduct or incapacity on the part of the applicant, or operational requirements of its business sufficient to justify her termination. The failure to sign the letter could hardly amount to this. Even if it could, the respondent would still have to accord the applicant procedural fairness, which clearly it did not do. It had no valid reason, within the meaning of ss. 170DE(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, to terminate her employment.  The termination was unlawful, the respondent being in breach of the said subsection.

Since termination, the applicant has been unable to obtain other employment despite attempts so to do.  She has been in receipt of unemployment benefit of about $178 per week since about late

-4-

November 1994.  Her wage at termination was about $365 gross per week.  Her efforts at finding new employment have been hampered by prospective employers hearing about the way in which she came to leave the respondent’s employment.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that re-instatement would be impracticable, given the prospect of re-establishing a harmonious relationship between employer and employee.  I agree.

For the breach of ss. 170 DE(1), I assess appropriate compensation to be the sum of $4500.

I order that:

1.        The application be allowed.

2.        The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $4500   within 14 days of the date of these orders.

-5-

I certify that this and the preceding FIVE (5) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judicial Registrar Boulton.

........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .....
Judicial Registrar

DATED:  29 March 1995

Counsel for applicant:    Mr. Quinn
Solicitors for applicant:    Boystown Legal Service

Appearance for respondent:      Mr. Rathie
  Queensland Master Builders   Association

Date of hearing:    28 March 1995
Date of judgment:        29 March 1995