Federal Court of Australia
DECISION NO: 716/95 Industrial Relations Court of Australia Victorian District Registry Matter No: VI 95/4236 VI 95/4237 Between: Sinan FILIZ Victor CLAVERIA Applicant And: Pilkington Glass Respondent Place: Melbourne Date: 15 December 1995 Before: Tomlinson JR
Reasons for decision delivered ex-tempore revised from transcript
This is matter No 4236 of 1995 and matter No 4237 of 1995, 4236 is Sinan Filiz, 4237 is the matter of Victor Claveria and the respondent in each case is Pilkington Glass.
Sinan Filiz under the Industrial Relations Legislation seeks reinstatement, compensation and payment of moneys for failure to provide notice payments upon termination. He alleged he was summarily terminated on 4 August 1995. By consent it was agreed between the parties the work history of Mr Filiz was:
(1) Commenced on 1.12.1989 and retrenched 17.8.1990.
(2) Commenced on 8.3.1991 and banned in employment on 27.6.1991.
(3) Commenced on 21 January 1993 and was terminated on 14 August 1995.
At the time of the termination the applicant was employed as an afternoon shift co-ordinator in receipt of $658.04 per week together with a shift allowance. The working conditions of the applicant, in fact both applicants, were governed by the Pilkington Australia Pty Limited Automotive Award 1991. At all times the applicant gave his evidence through a Turkish interpreter and he stated he was made aware of the job vacancy by the production manager Anton Grabovic. The applicant was made a leading hand in 1994. This was a promotion and he stated there had never been any complaint about his work by the respondent.
With regard to the termination procedures of the respondent the applicant stated in the first instance a verbal warning should be given, followed by a written warning and then a third warning after that. To my mind that issue was never fully tested during the course of these proceedings. According to the applicant he was working at home on his motor vehicle on 1 August 1995 when a socket became stuck in a wrench. The applicant went to work at 2.30 in the afternoon to commence his 3 o'clock afternoon shift. The applicant took his wrench with him and asked a fitter what he should do. He was told to heat the wrench, tap the head and the socket would come out.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate