Varuna Mallawarachchi v Quirk Corporate Cleaning Australia Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 587

C A T C H W O R D S INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - claim for UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - whether PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS - whether a VALID REASON for termination - REMEDY. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1988 Ss 170EA, 170DC, 170DE, 170EDA, 170EE VARUNA MALLAWARACHCHI -v- QUIRK CORPORATE CLEANING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD - WI 95/1627 BEFORE: BOON JR PLACE: PERTH DATE: 1 NOVEMBER 1995

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ) COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA ) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. WI 95/1627 BETWEEN: VARUNA MALLAWARACHCHI - Applicant AND: QUIRK CORPORATE CLEANING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD - Respondent MINUTE OF ORDERS BEFORE: BOON JR PLACE: PERTH DATE: 1 NOVEMBER 1995 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Within 14 days of the date of this order, the respondent reinstate the applicant by appointing the applicant to another position within the Perth city area on terms and conditions no less favourable than those on which the applicant was employed immediately before the termination. 2. Within 14 days of the date of this order, the respondent pay compensation to the applicant at the rate of $312.49 per week for the period between the date of termination and the date of reinstatement. NOTE: Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ) COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA ) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. WI 95/1627 BETWEEN: VARUNA MALLAWARACHCHI - Applicant AND: QUIRK CORPORATE CLEANING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD - Respondent BEFORE: BOON JR PLACE: PERTH DATE: 1 NOVEMBER 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application under Section 170EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 arising out of the alleged unlawful termination of employment of the applicant by the respondent. The applicant alleges that the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act were breached in a number of ways. Firstly, it is said that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made in relation to his conduct or performance. The respondent says that the applicant was given an opportunity to defend himself and further states that it gave the applicant a warning letter one week prior to termination. Secondly, the applicant says that the termination was not for a valid reason connected with his capacity or conduct or based on the operational requirements of the employer's undertaking. The applicant further says that the termination was in any event harsh, unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of Section 170DE(2) of the Act.