Luciana Lombardi v Euro Printing Co Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 236

C A T C H W O R D S INDUSTRIAL LAW - Termination of employment - claim of unlawful termination - whether valid reason for termination - procedural unfairness - compensation. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1988, Ss 170DC, 170EA LUCIANA LOMBARDI -v- EURO PRINTING CO PTY LTD Before: Wheeler JR Place Perth Date: 13 January 1995

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS) COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA ) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) WI 273/94 B E T W E E N: LUCIANO LOMBARDI - Applicant -v- PRINTING CO PTY LTD - Respondent MINUTE OF ORDERS BEFORE: Wheeler JR DATE: 13 January 1995 PLACE: Perth THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The termination of the employer's employment of the employee contravened Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Act 1988. 2. The Respondent pay the applicant compensation in the sum of $2,900. NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Industrial Court Rules.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS) COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA ) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) WI 273/94 B E T W E E N: LUCIANO LOMBARDI - Applicant -v- PRINTING CO PTY LTD - Respondent Before:Wheeler JR Place: Perth Date: 13 January 1995 EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR DECISION By an application dated 4 August 1994 the applicant, Mr Lombardi, claims a declaration and compensation in respect of the termination of his employment by the respondent on 16 July 1994. Briefly the employment arose in this way. The applicant first commenced working for the respondent as a printer in April 1992. At some stage subsequently, perhaps after a year, he was promoted to a position involving production management also. After a time, that additional duty was taken from him and he again became simply a printer. He left that employment of his own volition in about May 1994 and went to a job in a quarry driving bulldozers. After he had been in that employment in the quarry for a short period of time the respondent contacted him and offered him re-employment as a printer. There is a dispute as to whether that offer of re-employment was initially made on the basis of a return to work on a part-time basis, and that is relevant, and I'll come back to it in a moment. The applicant had enjoyed his former employment and had regretted leaving it and so he went back to his previous employment as a printer, a person operating the machines. He was working a 38-hour week and his pay as disclosed by exhibit A, his last pay slip, was a gross amount of $676 per week, with tax of 165.90 leaving a net pay of $510 a week.