Taylor v Qantas Airways Limited

[1996] IRCA 208

DECISION NO:  208/96

CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - claim of UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - MISCONDUCT - employee caught stealing - whether extraordinary circumstances made TERMINATION HARSH, UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE - ORDER of REINSTATEMENT by CONSENT - INVESTIGATION BY COURT of circumstances surrounding consent

Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth)

PETER JAMES TAYLOR v QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

QI 95/1392

CORAM:      MADGWICK J
PLACE:        BRISBANE
DATE:          2 APRIL 1996

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

No. QI95/1392

BETWEEN  Peter James TAYLOR

Applicant

AND  QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
  Respondent

CORAM:  MADGWICK J
PLACE:    BRISBANE
DATE:     2 APRIL 1996

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDERS BY CONSENT:

1. that the Applicant be reinstated as of 22 February 1996; and

1. that no compensation is payable.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

No. QI95/1392

BETWEEN  Peter James TAYLOR
  Applicant

AND  QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
  Respondent

CORAM:  MADGWICK J
PLACE:    BRISBANE
DATE:     2 APRIL 1996

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MADGWICK J:         In this case, the respondent employer has sought a review of a decision by a Judicial Registrar that the applicant employee was entitled to a remedy under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth), and that that remedy ought to be reinstatement in his employment as from a date in December last year.

One of the issues before the learned Judicial Registrar was whether the conduct of the employee could, in law, be regarded as theft in the strict sense.  However, for all practical purposes the employee, through his representative, concedes, and I think properly on the agreed facts, that his actions amount to theft in the eyes of any reasonable employer or any reasonable observer of an industrial situation.  After agreement the parties have sought particular orders by consent namely that the employee be reinstated and that no order for compensation be made.

In these circumstances, and for a variety of reasons, I sought to explore with the representatives of the parties the background of this settlement.  I wanted to ensure that there be no suspicion of impropriety in the Court's exercising its discretion in the favour of an employee who had been caught stealing from his employer.

I have been assured that there is no background of industrial pressure or anything of the kind.  I have also been informed of the nature of the medical evidence and the background social problems of the employee, Mr Taylor. Without embarrassing him or his family, it is fair to say that the problems are of a quite extraordinary kind.  On account of those very extraordinary problems alone in my view, it is properly conceded by the employer (exercising a degree of generous compassion) that termination of the employment would be harsh.

In these circumstances, I am prepared to make the agreed order proposed which is that Mr Taylor be reinstated as from 22 February 1996.  It is agreed between the parties that the circumstances are such that there should be no associated order for compensation and, accordingly, I will make none. 

I want to stress both to the employees of the respondent employer and to the world that the Court takes, as any sensible citizen would take, a very serious view of an employee caught stealing.  In general, it will be only where there are very extraordinary circumstances that the Court will be persuaded to intervene in such a case, even, for my own part, where the parties ask the Court to do so by consent.

If I had not been satisfied that there truly were extraordinary circumstances, I would simply have left the parties to give effect to such agreement as they might have reached in some way that would not have involved a positive order involving an exercise of discretion by the Court.

I compliment the parties on having attended to this matter in what seems to me to be a sensitive and constructive way, and I am quite satisfied that substantial justice has been done in this case.

I certify that this and the preceding 2 pages are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of His Honour Justice Madgwick.

Associate:  

Dated:       

APPEARANCES

Solicitor for the Applicant:      D Whyte, Transport Workers Union of Australia

Counsel for the Respondent:    G C Martin

Solicitor for the Respondent:   N Thomas, Blake Dawson Waldron

Date of hearing:  2 April 1996