FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MAYER v A.N.S.T.O. | [2003] FMCA 209 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS – Sex discrimination in employment – family responsibilities, sex and pregnancy – whether the applicant discriminated against in the terms on which employment was offered – whether the applicant was constructively dismissed from her employment – whether the applicant should have been permitted to work part-time following her return from maternity leave. CONTRACT – Breach – implied term of trust and confidence – constructive termination – notice of termination – implied term of reasonable notice – what amounts to reasonable notice in the circumstances considered. |
Australian Nuclear Science And Technology Organisation Act 1987 (Cth), ss.24, 36
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s.46PO
Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW)
Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1973 (Cth), s.8
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), ss.4A, 5, 7, 7A, 7B, 8, 14
Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Act 1995 (Cth), ss.7B, 7C
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
Advertiser Newspapers v Industrial relations Commission of South Australia and Grivell (1999) 90 IR 211
Alexander v Home Office[1998] 1 WLR 968
Allison v Bega Valley Council (1995) 63 IR 68; [1995] NSWIR Com 175
Australian Iron and Steel v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165
Bonela v Wollongong City Council [2001] NSWADT 194
Burazin v Blacktown City Guardian (1996) 142 ALR 144
Commonwealth Bank v HREOC (1997) 80 FCR 78
Escobar v Rainbow Printing Pty Ltd (No 2) [2002] FMCA 122
Griggs v Duke Power 401 US 424 (1970)
Hickie v Hunt & Hunt (7 March 1998, unreported, HREOC)
Mobazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd (No 2) (1995) 62 IR 200
QANTAS Airways v Christie(1998) 193 CLR 280
Russian v Woolworths (SA) Pty Ltd (1995) 64 IR 169
Thomson v Orica [2002] FCA 939
Waters v Public Transport Commission (1991) 173 CLR 349
Wattle v Kirkland (No 2) [2002] FMCA 135
Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] 1 QB 761
Westen v Union des Assurances de Paris (1999) 88 IR 259
Windross v Transact Communications Pty Ltd [2002] FMCA 145
| Applicant: | SAMANTHA MAYER |
| Respondent: | AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION |
| File No: | SZ1060 of 2002 |
| Delivered on: | 6 August 2003 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing dates: Date last submissions received: | 26 – 28 May 2003 22 July 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Driver FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr S Beckett |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Johnathon D’arcy & Co |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr S Lloyd |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The Court declares that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the applicant contrary to ss.7(1), 5(2), 14(2)(a) and 14 (2)(c) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), by refusing to extend the applicant’s contract of employment for a period of more than one year, and by imposing a condition that the applicant work full-time following a period of maternity leave that the applicant could not accept, thereby leading to the constructive dismissal of the applicant.
The Court orders that the respondent pay damages (including interest up to judgment) to the…
Continue reading Mayer v ANSTO
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mayer v ANSTO [2003] FMCA 209
- Case
- [2003] FMCA 209
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the actions of ANSTO constituted unlawful discrimination under sections 7(1), 5(2), 14(2)(a), and 14(2)(c) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), and if so, whether these actions led to Mayer's constructive dismissal. The court needed to assess the validity of Mayer's claims of discrimination and constructive dismissal, and if substantiated, to determine the appropriate remedies, including damages and tax implications of the award.
In its reasoning, the court found that ANSTO's actions constituted unlawful discrimination against Mayer as defined by the Act. The court held that by refusing to extend Mayer's employment contract beyond one year and imposing a condition that she work full-time immediately following maternity leave, ANSTO had contravened the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). The court also found that these actions resulted in Mayer's constructive dismissal. As a result, the court ordered ANSTO to pay Mayer damages, including interest up to the date of judgment, in the sum of $39,294. Additionally, the court mandated that ANSTO deduct from this award and remit to the Australian Taxation Office an amount due for income tax, calculated on the basis that the damages awarded included assessable income and an eligible termination payment.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The Court declares that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the applicant contrary to ss.7(1), 5(2), 14(2)(a) and 14 (2)(c) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), by refusing to extend the applicant’s contract of employment for a period of more than one year, and by imposing a condition that the applicant work full-time following a period of maternity leave that the applicant could not accept, thereby leading to the constructive dismissal of the applicant.
2.
The Court orders that the respondent pay damages (including interest up to judgment) to the applicant in the sum of $39,294.
3.
The respondent shall deduct from the above damages award and remit to the Australian Taxation Office an amount due for income tax, calculated on the basis that the damages awarded includes:
(a) assessable income in the sum of $13,642; and
(b) an eligible termination payment in the sum of $9,852.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.