Legal Research
Cases
Mann v State Rail Authority

Mann v State Rail Authority

Case [1999] FCA 273 24 March 1999

Probationary Employment

Reasonableness of Probation Period

Statutory Interpretation

Jurisdiction

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Rhett Karl Mann v Vice President Ross, Deputy President Duncan, Commissioner Larkin sitting as the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, President Justice Giudice in his capacity as a Principal Member of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and State Rail Authority
[1999] FCA 273
No. NG 807 of 1998
Number of pages - 8
Industrial Law

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

RYAN, MOORE AND MARSHALL JJ

Industrial Law - termination of employment - proceedings in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission seeking relief against termination of employment pursuant to s 170CE of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) - whether applicant's right to bring an application to the Commission was excluded by the combined operation of s 170CC of the Act and reg 30B(1)(c) of the Workplace Relations Regulations (Cth) - whether maximum period of probation of twelve months was reasonable - application for writs of certiorari and mandamus against a Full Bench of the Commission - whether there was a constructive failure of the part of the Commission to exercise its jurisdiction.

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 170CC

Workplace Relations Regulations (Cth) reg 30B

Transport Administration (Staff) Regulations 1995 (NSW) cl 8

Potter v Australian Capital Territory (No 2) (1997) 74 IR 403 referred to

Rose v Department of Social Security (1990) 21 FCR 241 applied

Nimmo v Alexander Cowan & Sons [1968] AC 107 referred to

Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) 91 CLR 512 referred to

SYDNEY, 2 and 5 March 1999 (hearing), 24 March 1999 (decision)

#DATE 24:3:1999

Appearances

The Appellant appeared in person.

Solicitor for the First and Second Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Representative for the Third Respondent

on 2 March 1999: B Larkins, in-house industrial officer

Counsel for the Third Respondent on 5 March 1999: R F Crow

THE COURT ORDERS

A writ of certiorari issue to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") removing the decision of Commissioner Jones of 10 February 1998 in application No 21090 of 1997 being the application by Mr Rhett Mann under s 170CE of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) into this Court and quashing it.
2. A writ of mandamus issue to the Commission directing it to hear and determine in accordance with law, application No 21090 of 1997 being the application by Mr Rhett Mann under s 170CE of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).

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

RYAN, MOORE AND MARSHALL JJ

1. This is an application for an order nisi for a writ of certiorari, a writ of mandamus and an injunction against a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") and the President of the Commission who has been joined, presumably, as representative of the whole Commission. The application was remitted to this Court by an order made in the High Court by McHugh J on 31 July 1998.

2. The applicant was employed by the third…

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 Mann v State Rail Authority

Details

AGLC: Rhett Karl Mann v Vice President Ross, Deputy President Duncan, Commissioner Larkin sitting as the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, President Justice Giudice in his capacity as a Principal Member of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and State Rail Authority [1999] FCA 273 No. NG 807 of 1998 Number of pages - 8 Industrial Law
Case: [1999] FCA 273
Decision Date: 24 MARCH 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mann v State Rail Authority involved Rhett Karl Mann, the applicant, who sought relief against his termination of employment from the State Rail Authority (SRA) under s 170CE of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). The legal issues in this case revolved around whether the applicant's right to bring an application to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) was excluded by the combined operation of s 170CC of the Act and Regulation 30B(1)(c) of the Workplace Relations Regulations (Cth). Additionally, the court had to determine whether the maximum period of probation of twelve months was reasonable. The applicant's employment was terminated during his probationary period, and he applied to the Commission for relief against the termination.

The court held that the combined effect of the letter sent to the applicant and clause 8 of the Transport Administration (Staff) Regulations 1995 (NSW) resulted in the determination in advance of a maximum period of probation of twelve months. However, the court found that the State Rail Authority had not demonstrated that a maximum period of twelve months probationary employment was reasonable in relation to the employment of the applicant when he was first engaged. The court concluded that the maximum period of twelve months was not reasonable, and the powers of the Commission to remedy a contravention of Part VIA of the Act should not be denied to the applicant. The court found that there had been a constructive failure on the Commission's part to exercise jurisdiction, and a writ of mandamus should issue.

The final orders of the court were to issue a writ of certiorari to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, removing the decision of Commissioner Jones of 10 February 1998 in application No 21090 of 1997 being the application by Mr Rhett Mann under s 170CE of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) into this Court and quashing it, as well as a writ of mandamus to the Commission directing it to hear and determine in accordance with law, application No 21090 of 1997 being the application by Mr Rhett Mann under s 170CE of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).

Orders