Stephen Place v Techforce Pty Ltd
[1995] IRCA 288
•29 June 1995
C A T C H W O R D S
INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - CASUAL EMPLOYEE
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1988, ss.170EA, Reg 30B(1)(d)
STEPHEN PLACE -V- TECHFORCE PTY LTD
No. SI 195/1043
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR: L FARRELL
PLACE: ADELAIDE
DATE: 29 JUNE 1995
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT )
OF AUSTRALIA )
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY )
No. SI 195/1043
B E T W E E N:
STEPHEN PLACE
Applicant
AND
TECHFORCE PTY LTD
Respondent
MINUTES OF ORDER
BEFORE: JUDICIAL REGISTRAR FARRELL
PLACE: ADELAIDE
DATE: 29 JUNE 1995
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The Application is dismissed.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the
Industrial Relations Court Rules
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT )
OF AUSTRALIA )
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY )
No. SI 195/1043
B E T W E E N:
STEPHEN PLACE
Applicant
AND
TECHFORCE PTY LTD
Respondent
BEFORE: JUDICIAL REGISTRAR FARRELL
PLACE: ADELAIDE
DATE: 29 JUNE 1995
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an Application pursuant to Section 170EA of the Industrial Relations Act. The applicant claims that his employment was terminated unlawfully. He does not seek reinstatement.
The Applicant is 30 years old. He attended at the offices of the Respondent after being told by a friend that work was available at a factory called “Castalloy” near his home.
The Respondent is an employment agency. It hires tradespeople to companies such as “Castalloy”.
An employee of the Respondent, Bill Price, interviewed the Applicant. The Applicant completed an employment Application form. That form indicated that the employment would be on a casual basis for a maximum of three months. He was told that after that time it was possible that he could be employed directly by “Castalloy”. It was the Applicant’s evidence that he understood his employment would be on a casual basis.
The Applicant commenced his duties at “Castalloy” on the Monday following his interview. He had no difficulty performing his duties. He worked uneventfully for the next three days. On the Thursday he attended an Occupational Health and Safety lecture. During the lecture he suffered an attack of urticaria, from which he had suffered for the past seven years and for which he took medication.
The Applicant showed the medication to Mr Bowden, an employee of Castalloy who had conducted the lecture. The medication had a warning. “This medicine may cause drowsiness and may increase the effects of alcohol. If affected do not drive a motor vehicle or operate machinery”. He took two tablets. He was then told to go home.
He attended at “Castalloy” the following day. In the afternoon he was told by his supervisor that he was not required at “Castalloy” and that he should contact the Respondent. He spoke to Bill Price and was offered work at another factory. Two further offers of work were made to the Applicant by the Respondent however the Applicant did not accept either offer.
The Respondent argued that the Applicant was a casual employee engaged for a short period and therefore was excluded from pursuing a claim for unlawful termination. (Regulation 30B(1)(d)).
In my view the nature of the relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent was casual. There was nothing in the evidence to indicate otherwise.
The Applicant does not fall into the category of casual employees who are excepted from the operation of Regulation 30B(1)(d). For this reason the Application must fail. I dismiss the Application
I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the reasons for my judgment.
DATE OF HEARING : 19 June 1995
FOR THE APPLICANT : Himself
FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr J Rau
0
0
0