INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from the County Court of Victoria – employment terminated – whether primary judge erred in concluding that employee’s misconduct (whether considered separately or cumulatively) did not justify summary dismissal – whether primary judge failed to give adequate weight to certain facts – whether primary judge’s process of reasoning miscarried
CONTRACTS – employment contract – when termination of contract effective – whether contract terminated on payment in lieu of notice or whether terminated for cause – whether employer entitled to rely on serious misconduct as grounds for dismissal where such conduct not known to or raised by the employer at the time contract terminated – scope and applicability of the principle in Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia (1931) 45 CLR 359
COSTS – consideration of the construction and application of s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in circumstances where a plaintiff pursued claims in a state court under the Fair Work Act and common law in the same proceeding – whether offer of compromise unreasonably refused
[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 Melbourne Stadiums Ltd v Sautner
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Melbourne Stadiums Ltd v Sautner [2015] FCAFC 20
Case
[2015] FCAFC 20
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Melbourne Stadiums Ltd appealed against a decision of the County Court of Victoria that it had wrongfully terminated the employment of an employee, Mr Sautner. The employee had been dismissed following an investigation into alleged misconduct, which included claims of bullying, harassment and inappropriate workplace behaviour. The County Court found that the employer's decision to dismiss the employee was unreasonable and unjustifiable. Melbourne Stadiums Ltd contended that the County Court had erred in its conclusions regarding the employee's misconduct and in the weight it had given to certain facts. It also argued that the County Court had misapplied the principle in Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia in determining when the employment contract was terminated.
The legal issues in the case included whether the County Court had erred in concluding that the employee's misconduct did not justify summary dismissal, whether the County Court had given adequate weight to certain facts, and whether the employer was entitled to rely on serious misconduct as grounds for dismissal where such conduct was not known to or raised by the employer at the time the contract terminated. The court also considered whether the County Court had misapplied the principle in Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia, which holds that an employer cannot rely on misconduct as grounds for dismissal where such conduct is not known to or raised by the employer at the time the contract terminates. Finally, the court considered the construction and application of s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in circumstances where a plaintiff pursued claims in a state court under the Fair Work Act and common law in the same proceeding.
The court found that the County Court had erred in its conclusions regarding the employee's misconduct and in the weight it had given to certain facts. It held that the employer was entitled to rely on the misconduct as grounds for dismissal, even though the misconduct was not known to or raised by the employer at the time the contract terminated. The court also held that the County Court had misapplied the principle in Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia. Finally, the court found that the plaintiff had unreasonably refused an offer of compromise, and therefore no order was made as to the costs of the appeal.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the County Court of Victoria were set aside. In lieu thereof, the respondent's proceedings in the County Court of Victoria were dismissed with no order as to costs. There was no order as to the costs of this appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. Order 1 of the orders of the County Court of Victoria made on 2 May 2014 be set aside.
3. Orders 1 to 3 of orders of the County Court of Victoria made on 6 June 2014 be set aside.
4. In lieu thereof, order that the respondent’s proceedings in the County Court of Victoria be dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. There be no order as to the costs of this appeal.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.