Limn v Inhouse Printing Pty Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Limn v Inhouse Printing Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 141

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 170DE

JOHN FRANCIS SYDNEY LIMN v INHOUSE PRINTING PTY LIMITED
ACN 075 007 206
NI 2288 of 1996

GYLES J
SYDNEY
25 FEBRUARY 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY		NI 2288 OF  1996
BETWEEN:	JOHN FRANCIS SYDNEY LIMN APPLICANT
AND:	INHOUSE PRINTING PTY LIMITED ACN 075 007 206 RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY	NI 2288 OF 1996

BETWEEN:	JOHN FRANCIS SYDNEY LIMN APPLICANT
AND:	INHOUSE PRINTING PTY LIMITED ACN 075 007 206 RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	25 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by John Francis Sydney Limn (“the applicant”) for relief in respect of alleged wrongful termination of his employment contrary to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the Act”) as that Act was in force at 29 October 1996.

2. On 11 November 1996 the applicant filed an application for relief pursuant to s 170EA of the Act in the then existing Industrial Relations Court of Australia (“the IRC”). The details of the claim were not entirely clear. He sought compensation and claimed that he had received no annual holiday pay or superannuation entitlements for the years October 1993 to October 1994, October 1994 to October 1995 and for the periods of October 1995 to December 1995 and January 1996 to October 1996 and that he had been short-paid in his last week in the sum of $502 and had been short-paid an unspecified amount on forty five four-day shifts. His brief summary of the reasons given for termination was:

   “1 week
   Given no notice”

   It is not necessary to trace the subsequent procedural history of the matter.  Counsel are agreed that I am to hear the matter de novo.

3. Section 170DE of the Act provided:

   “170 DE        (1)       An employer must not terminate an employee’s employment unless there is a valid reason, or valid reasons, connected with the employee’s capacity or conduct based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.

   (2)       A reason is not valid if, having regard to the employee’s capacity and conduct and those operational requirements the termination is harsh, unjust or unreasonable.  This subsection does not limit the cases where a reason may be taken not to be valid”

4. Sections 170DB, 170DC and 170EDA(1) are also relevant, and provided:

   170DB(1)       An employer must not terminate an employee’s employment unless:

   (a)the employee has been given either the period of notice required by subsection (2), or compensation instead of notice;  or

   (b)the employee is guilty of serious misconduct, that is, misconduct of a kind such that it would be unreasonable to require the employer to continue the employment during the notice period.

   (2)The required period of notice is first worked out using this table:

Employee’s…