Tsiamas, Arthur v ALH Group Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 591

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA INDUSTRIAL LAW - termination of employment - misconduct - responsibility of head chef for standard of food and for cleanliness and hygiene Workplace Relations Act 1996 ss.170DE(1), 170EA CASES: Bi-Lo Proprietary Limited v Hooper (1994) 53 IR 224

Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371

Kerr v Jaroma Pty Ltd (IRCA, unreported, Marshall J, 7 October 1996)

Nettlefold v Kym Smoker Limited (1996) 69 IR 370

Thomas v Ralph Lynch trading as Bellingen Grocery (IRCA, unreported, Wilcox CJ, 20 December 1996)

Westen v Union Des Assurance De Paris (IRCA, unreported, Madgwick J, 20 February 1997)

Sangwin and Imogen Pty Ltd (IRCA, unreported, von Doussa J, 8 March 996)

Imogen Proprietary Limited v Sangwin (1996) 70 IR 254 TSIAMAS -v- ALH GROUP PTY LTD No. VI-2562 of 1996 Ryan JR Melbourne 20 June 1997

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI-2562 of 1996 B E T W E E N : ARTHUR TSIAMAS Applicant AND ALH GROUP PTY LTD Respondent MINUTES OF ORDERS Judicial Registrar Ryan 20 June 1997 THE COURT ORDERS: 1. That the application be dismissed.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI-2562 of 1996 B E T W E E N : ARTHUR TSIAMAS Applicant AND ALH GROUP PTY LTD Respondent Before: Ryan JR Place: Melbourne Date: 20 June 1997 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered Ex Tempore) THE APPLICATION

The Applicant was head chef at the Ferntree Gully Hotel from 31 October 1995 until 9 October 1996. He has applied for relief in respect to the termination of his employment by the Respondent on 9 October 1996. He seeks reinstatement. The Respondent is a large national hotel operator responsible for over 100 hotels. Mr Shaw appeared for the Applicant and Mr Klemens for the Respondent. THE RESPONSE

The Respondent concedes that the employment was terminated at the initiative of the employer, and asserts that the termination was based on gross misconduct by the Applicant in circumstances in which the employer could not reasonably be expected to give the employee an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made. In any event, the Respondent also asserts that the Applicant was given an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations and that the termination was for valid reason connected with the employee's conduct, and was a lawful termination. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE RESPONDENT