Potter v Australian Capital Territory - [1997] IRCA 24

DECISION NO:24/97

CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - PROBATION - Whether maximum probationary period of two years for junior clerical position reasonable - probationary employee suffering serious medical disability at time of appointment - two years is reasonable

Workplace Relations Act 1996 s 170DE s 170DF s 170EA
Public Service Act 1922
Public Sector Managment Act 1994 (ACT)

Fisher v Commonwealth of Australia (1995) 63 IR 401
Ryan v Furneys Stockfeeds Ltd (1996) 66 IR 298
Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406
Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385

No. AI 1216 of 1995

KIM SUSAN POTTER v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

MOORE J
CANBERRA
10 FEBRUARY 1997

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS      )
  )
COURT OF AUSTRALIA               )      No. AI 1216 of 1995
  )
ACT DISTRICT REGISTRY            )

BETWEEN: KIM SUSAN POTTER

Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Respondent

JUDGE: Moore J

PLACE: Canberra

DATE: 10 February 1997

ORDER OF THE COURT

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application is dismissed.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS      )
  )
COURT OF AUSTRALIA               )      No. AI 1216 of 1995
  )
ACT DISTRICT REGISTRY            )

BETWEEN: KIM SUSAN POTTER

Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Respondent

JUDGE: Moore J

PLACE: Canberra

DATE: 10 February 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

An application by Ms Kim Susan Potter under section 170EA of what is now entitled the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ("the Act") alleges the termination of her employment on 14 July 1995 by the Australian Capital Territory was in contravention of s170DE(1) and s170DF(1)(f) of the Act.

Factual Background

The circumstances in which Ms Potter's employment was terminated are unusual and, in many respects, tragic. The events leading to the termination were, except in relation to one matter, not contentious.

On 4 October 1992 Ms Potter suffered what proved to be a serious back injury while pushing a theatre table at Woden Valley Hospital where she worked. She was, at the time, an employee of the Commonwealth employed under Division 10 of Part III of the Public Service Act 1922 (Cth) ("PS Act"). On 16 November 1992 Ms Potter commenced a rehabilitation program which involved her undertaking clerical work within the hospital's administration. It was not in issue that by March 1993 Ms Potter had become a "continuing employee" for the purposes of Division 10. I will later discuss the relevance of her status as a continuing employee. Ms Potter's rehabilitation was being overseen by a Ms Elizabeth Cooper, who had been appointed as her case manager.

In March 1993, Ms Cooper drew Ms Potter's attention to a position that had been advertised in a staff bulletin of the hospital. It was a position of administrative service officer class 2 in the Case Management Unit, Personnel Services. The Case Management Unit was the unit in which Ms Cooper worked. Ms Potter applied for the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Potter v Australian Capital Territory and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1997] IRCA 24
Decision Date: 10 February 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Potter v Australian Capital Territory, the applicant, Mr. Potter, sought review of a decision by the respondent, the Australian Capital Territory, to terminate his employment. The employment was for a junior clerical position, and Mr. Potter had been employed on a probationary basis. Mr. Potter alleged that the termination was unfair and unreasonable, particularly as he had a serious medical disability at the time of his appointment. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's decision to terminate Mr. Potter's employment during his probationary period was lawful. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the maximum probationary period of two years was reasonable, considering Mr. Potter's medical condition. The court had to weigh the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness against the statutory provisions governing probationary employment.

The court found that the respondent's decision to terminate Mr. Potter's employment was reasonable and lawful. The two-year probationary period was deemed appropriate for a junior clerical position, and the respondent had acted in accordance with the statutory provisions. The court also considered Mr. Potter's medical condition but concluded that it did not affect the reasonableness of the probationary period. The court found that the respondent had not breached any principles of natural justice or procedural fairness in making the decision to terminate Mr. Potter's employment.

The court dismissed Mr. Potter's application for review, finding that the respondent's decision to terminate his employment was lawful and reasonable. The court upheld the respondent's decision and found no merit in Mr. Potter's appeal.

Orders