Hemade v Maxwell Chemicals Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 242

Federal Court of Australia

Document text

DECISION NO: 242/96 CATCHWORDS INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - claim of UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - whether VALID REASON for termination - whether HARSH, UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE - APPLICATION DISMISSED. Industrial Relations Act 1988 ss 170DE(1), 170DE(2), 170EA Ali Mutlaq HEMADE -v- MAXWELL CHEMICALS PTY LTD - WI 2568 of 1995 Before: BOON JR Place: PERTH Date: 4 JUNE 1996

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WI 2568 of 1995 B E T W E E N: Ali Mutlaq HEMADE Applicant A N D: MAXWELL CHEMICALS PTY LTD Respondent MINUTE OF ORDERS 4 JUNE 1996 BOON JR THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 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 WI 2568 of 1995 B E T W E E N: Ali Mutlaq HEMADE Applicant A N D: MAXWELL CHEMICALS PTY LTD Respondent REASONS FOR DECISION 4 JUNE 1996 BOON JR 1. This is an application under Section 170EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 in relation to the alleged unlawful termination of the applicant's employment by the respondent. The applicant, Mr Hemade, alleges that there was no valid reason for the termination of his employment as required by the provisions of Section 170DE(1). Further, Mr Hemade says that in any event the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of those words in Section 170DE(2). The respondent denies that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and says that there was a valid reason, based upon Mr Hemade's performance, for the termination. 2. There is a further claim by Mr Hemade in this Court's associated jurisdiction for the non payment of a bonus allegedly agreed to be paid to him by his employer. The respondent's position in relation to the bonus is that it was performance based and because the group in which Mr Hemade was employed did not meet the criteria for the payment of the bonus, it was not payable to Mr Hemade in the course of the period of his employment by the respondent.

Read full text →

Official source

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.

Not checked yet

Last checked with source on —

Open official source

Checking whether the official page can be embedded…

Study brief

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.

Unknown

No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.

You've got 21 of 22 free Acts left this visit. Sign up anytime for Facts, Related, and study briefs too.

Document text

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WI 2568 of 1995 B E T W E E N: Ali Mutlaq HEMADE Applicant A N D: MAXWELL CHEMICALS PTY LTD Respondent MINUTE OF ORDERS 4 JUNE 1996 BOON JR THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 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 WI 2568 of 1995 B E T W E E N: Ali Mutlaq HEMADE Applicant A N D: MAXWELL CHEMICALS PTY LTD Respondent REASONS FOR DECISION 4 JUNE 1996 BOON JR 1. This is an application under Section 170EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 in relation to the alleged unlawful termination of the applicant's employment by the respondent. The applicant, Mr Hemade, alleges that there was no valid reason for the termination of his employment as required by the provisions of Section 170DE(1). Further, Mr Hemade says that in any event the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of those words in Section 170DE(2). The respondent denies that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and says that there was a valid reason, based upon Mr Hemade's performance, for the termination. 2. There is a further claim by Mr Hemade in this Court's associated jurisdiction for the non payment of a bonus allegedly agreed to be paid to him by his employer. The respondent's position in relation to the bonus is that it was performance based and because the group in which Mr Hemade was employed did not meet the criteria for the payment of the bonus, it was not payable to Mr Hemade in the course of the period of his employment by the respondent.

Read full text →