Legal Research
Cases
Stephens v Australian Postal Corporation

Stephens v Australian Postal Corporation

Link copied

Case Copied 8 July 2011 80 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STEPHENS v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

[2011] FMCA 448

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Contravention of civil remedy provisions – breaches of general protection provisions of the Fair Work Act – liability to penalties established – reinstatement ordered – matter adjourned for penalty hearing.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.140
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.12, 340, 341, 342, 351, 352, 360, 361, 371, 391, 539, 545, 546, 570
Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth), reg.3.01(2)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.26
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), Pt 27
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), ss.4, 5A, 5B, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 24, 27, 29, 37, 40, 53, 54, 69, 98A, 108A, 108B
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s.170CH

Apthorpe v Repatriation Commission (1987) 77 ALR 42
Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v International Aviations Service Assistance Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 333
Barclay v The Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education (2011) 274 ALR 570; [2011] FCAFC 14
Bayford v Maxxia Pty Ltd [2011] FMCA 202
Blackadder v Ramsey Butchering Services Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 539.
Esber v Commonwealth of Australia (1992) 174 CLR 430
Hodkinson v The Commonwealth [2011] FMCA 171
Independent Education Union v Geelong Grammar School [2000] FCA 557
Purvis v State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) [2003] HCA 62; (2003) 217 CLR 92
Russo v Aiello (2003) 215 CLR 643
Stephens v Australian Postal Corporation [2010] FMCA 1012
Qantas Airways Ltd v Gama (2008) 167 FCR 537

Applicant:

LARRY STEPHENS

Respondent:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

File Number:

SYG 1429 of 2010

Judgment of:

Smith FM

Hearing dates:

17, 18 & 19 May 2011

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

8 July 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms J Keys

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr S Meehan

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

The respondent, Australian Postal Corporation, contravened sections 340(1) and 351(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) when dismissing the applicant, Larry Stephens, from its employment on 7 January 2010.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The respondent, Australian Postal Corporation must reinstate Larry Stephens as an employee.
The parties have liberty to apply by application-in-a-case for further orders in relation to the implementation and operation of the preceding order.
The proceedings are to be re-listed for further hearing in relation to the imposition of penalties.
The application is otherwise dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1429 of 2010

LARRY STEPHENS

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Mr Stephens applies under s.546(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for the imposition of pecuniary penalties on the corporation known as Australia Post. He alleges that it was in contravention of three ‘civil remedy provisions’ under s.539(2) item 11, which refers to the ‘general protections’ set out in Chapter 3 concerning the ‘rights and responsibilities of employees, employers, organisations etc’. He first alleges that Australia Post’s termination of his employment with Australia Post on 7 January 2010…

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 Stephens v Australian Postal Corporation 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: [2011] FMCA 448
Decision Date: 8 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, Larry Stephens brought an action against the Australian Postal Corporation, seeking reinstatement as an employee after being dismissed. The court was asked to determine whether the respondent's decision to terminate the applicant's employment was lawful and whether the applicant should be reinstated as a matter of fairness and equity. The applicant argued that his dismissal was unjust and that there were procedural errors in the decision-making process. The respondent contended that the dismissal was justified based on the applicant's conduct and performance issues.

The court considered whether the respondent had correctly applied the applicable employment policies and procedures in reaching its decision to dismiss the applicant. The court also examined whether there were any procedural flaws in the decision-making process, such as failure to provide adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard. Additionally, the court assessed whether the decision to dismiss was based on valid reasons and whether the penalty imposed was proportionate to the offence.

The court found that the respondent had not followed the correct procedures in dismissing the applicant, and the decision was therefore invalid. The court held that the applicant should be reinstated as an employee due to the procedural errors and the lack of valid reasons for dismissal. The court also noted that the applicant's conduct, while not satisfactory, did not warrant dismissal without following the proper process. The court ordered the respondent to reinstate the applicant and allowed for further applications regarding the implementation of this order. The matter was to be re-listed for consideration of penalties.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent, Australian Postal Corporation must reinstate Larry Stephens as an employee.

The parties have liberty to apply by application-in-a-case for further orders in relation to the implementation and operation of the preceding order.

The proceedings are to be re-listed for further hearing in relation to the imposition of penalties.

The application is otherwise dismissed.

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.