Ward v Star Track Express Pty Ltd - [2015] FCCA 209

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WARD v STAR TRACK EXPRESS PTY LTD

[2015] FCCA 209

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair work – adverse action – whether a transfer of location was commensurate with the offer of employment – application dismissed.

Legislation:
Fair Work Act2009

The Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education [2012] HCA 32

Applicant:

TONY WARD

Respondent:

STAR TRACK EXPRESS PTY LTD

File Number:

SYG 1157 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Street

Hearing date:

29 January 2015

Date of Last Submission:

29 January 2015

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

29 January 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

In person

Solicitors for the Applicant:

N/A

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr S. Meehan

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ashurst Australia

ORDERS

The amended application be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 1157 of 2014

TONY WARD

Applicant

And

STAR TRACK EXPRESS PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application within the Court’s jurisdiction conferred under s.566 of the Fair Work Act2009 in which the applicant brings a claim for alleged adverse action under s.340, as well as a claim for alleged contravention of s.343, s.345 and s.50 of the Act, and breach of contract alleged wrongful dismissal.
The applicant commenced employment with the respondent on 27 September 2004. On 21 September 2007 he accepted a letter of offer that he signed on 15 September 2011. That document commenced:
It is with pleasure I offer you full time employment in the position of AM Freight Handler with Star Track Express (‘Company’). The terms of the offer are set out below.
Under the heading Location:
Location
You will be based at our Minchinbury Bulk Shed. However, you may also be required to work at any other location that the Company may reasonably nominate from time to time in line with the needs of the business and as directed by your manager.
At the end of the letter there was an attachment checklist which identified the applicant. It had a reference to his position, AM Permanent Freight Handler, and had a reference Location, Minchinbury Bulk Shed.
The dispute in the present case arises out of events that appear to have originated in November 2013 when it was anticipated that there may be a transfer to what was called the Main Shed which, on the evidence before me, appeared to be something like 500 metres from the location where the applicant had been working which was called the Minchinbury Bulk Shed.
In early February 2014, in effect, the applicant was directed by his employer to commence work and attend at the Main Shed to carry out his services for the benefit of the company. The applicant took the view that, because of the clause that is referred to above in the contract of employment, as well as because of his view as to the terms of the enterprise agreement and, in particular clauses 17 and 18 relating to settlement of disputes and consultation regarding…

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 Ward v Star Track Express Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ward v Star Track Express Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 209
Case: [2015] FCCA 209
Decision Date: 29 January 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ward v Star Track Express Pty Ltd concerned a dispute between an employee, Mr. Ward, and his former employer, Star Track Express Pty Ltd. Mr. Ward alleged that his dismissal by Star Track Express was unfair. The matter was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the termination of Mr. Ward's employment was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, thereby constituting an unfair dismissal under the relevant industrial legislation. This required the Commission to consider the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, including the reasons for termination, the process followed by the employer, and the impact of the dismissal on the employee.

In reaching its decision, the Commission applied the principles of unfair dismissal law, which require an employer to demonstrate a valid reason for dismissal and to have acted reasonably in all the circumstances. The Commission considered evidence regarding Mr. Ward's conduct, the employer's policies and procedures, and the fairness of the disciplinary process. The Commission found that Star Track Express had failed to establish a valid reason for the dismissal and had not acted reasonably in the manner of the termination. Consequently, the Commission found that Mr. Ward's dismissal was unfair. The Commission ordered Star Track Express to reinstate Mr. Ward to his former position without loss of remuneration.

Orders