Legal Research
Cases
Roy Morgan Research Ltd v K Baker

Roy Morgan Research Ltd v K Baker

Case [2013] FWCFB 8936 20 November 2013

Appeal

Standing

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2013] FWCFB 8936

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Roy Morgan Research Ltd
v
K Baker
(C2013/6194)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON
DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON
COMMISSIONER LEE

MELBOURNE, 20 NOVEMBER 2013

Appeal against decision [[2013] FWC 6694] of Deputy President Gooley at Melbourne on 6 September 2013 in matter number U2013/539 - permission to appeal refused.

[1] Pursuant to s.604 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), Roy Morgan Research Ltd (the Appellant) has appealed a decision 1 and order2 of Deputy President Gooley of 6 September 2013 in which the Deputy President found that:

• the termination by the Appellant of the employment Ms K Baker (the Respondent) was not a case of genuine redundancy within the meaning of s.389 of the Act;

• the termination was harsh, unjust and unreasonable; and

• the Respondent had been unfairly dismissed.

[2] Deputy President Gooley ordered the payment by the Appellant of compensation to the Respondent of $37,000 less applicable taxation.

[3] The appeal is directed wholly to the finding by Deputy President Gooley that the termination by the Appellant of the employment of the Respondent was not a case of genuine redundancy within the meaning of s.389 of the Act.

GENUINE REDUNDANCY

[4] Section 385 of the Act provides that a person has been unfairly dismissed if the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) is satisfied that:

“(a) the person has been dismissed; and

(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and

(d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.”

[5] Section 389(1) of the Act provides that a person’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy if:

“(a) the person’s employer no longer required the person’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise; and

(b) the employer has complied with any obligation in a modern award or enterprise agreement that applied to the employment to consult about the redundancy.”

[6] However, s.389(2) of the Act provides that a person’s dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the person to be redeployed within:

“(a) the employer’s enterprise; or

(b) the enterprise of an associated entity of the employer.”

DECISION OF DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

[7] Deputy President Gooley was “unable to find that Ms Baker’s position was made redundant because of changes” in the Appellant’s operational requirements. 3

[8] In reaching that conclusion in respect of s.389(1)(a) of the Act, Deputy President Gooley set out the evidence and made findings in relation to it. 4 Much of that evidence was that of Mr S Schwarz, the Human Relations (HR) Manager for the Appellant, who made the decision to restructure the HR department and make the Respondent’s position redundant. Deputy President Gooley concluded, on the basis of that evidence:

“[21] There is no doubt…

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 Roy Morgan Research Ltd v K Baker

Details

AGLC: Roy Morgan Research Ltd v K Baker [2013] FWCFB 8936
Case: [2013] FWCFB 8936
Decision Date: 20 NOVEMBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roy Morgan Research Ltd v K Baker, the applicant, Roy Morgan Research Ltd, sought leave to appeal against a decision made by the Fair Work Commission on 6 September 2013. The decision was rendered by Deputy President Gooley in Melbourne. The matter, U2013/539, arose from an industrial dispute concerning the applicant's application to dismiss an employee, K Baker, and the subsequent award of compensation by the Commission.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the associated regulations concerning the validity of the dismissal and the fairness of the compensation awarded. The applicant argued that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the law and that the compensation awarded was excessive. The respondent, K Baker, contended that the dismissal was unjust and that the compensation was appropriate given the circumstances.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the evidence and submissions provided. The court found that the Commission's decision was based on a sound interpretation of the law and that there was no basis to conclude that the decision was unreasonable. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for the appeal, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The court concluded that the decision of the Commission was correct and that there was no merit in the appeal.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The final orders of the court confirmed the decision of the Fair Work Commission as binding and upheld the compensation awarded to the respondent.

Orders