Giles v Australian Personnel Solutions Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 403

Federal Court of Australia

Document text

DECISION NO: 403/96 C A T C H W O R D S INDUSTRIAL LAW - termination of employment - demotion - whether constitutes termination of employment Industrial Relations Act 1988 ss.170EA CASES: Strachan v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd IRCA (unreported) 6 February 1996, NI-1266R/1995, Decision No 48/96

Grout v Gunnedah Shire Council (1994) 1 IRCR 143 at 160 Brackenridge v Toyota Motor Corporation (IRCA) Beasley J (unreported) NI-1218 of 1995, 19 April 1996, Decision No. 162/96 GILES -v- AUSTRALIAN PERSONNEL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD No. VI-1686 of 1996 Before: Ryan JR Place: Melbourne Date: 16 August 1996

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI-1686 of 1996 B E T W E E N : STELLA PATRICIA GILES Applicant AND AUSTRALIAN PERSONNEL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD Respondent MINUTES OF ORDERS Judicial Registrar Ryan 16 August 1996 THE COURT ORDERS: 1. That the application be dismissed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI-1686 of 1996 B E T W E E N : STELLA PATRICIA GILES Applicant AND AUSTRALIAN PERSONNEL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD Respondent Before: Ryan JR Place: Melbourne Date: 16 August 1996 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application for reinstatement by way of a claim of unlawful termination of employment. The application was lodged in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 8 May. A conciliation conference was held on 4 June and the matter was referred unresolved to the Court on 5 June. The Respondent asserts the Applicant was employed until 18 July and that there is no valid claim of unlawful termination of employment before the Court. Counsel agreed to resolve the preliminary issue of jurisdiction and no evidence was called. Counsel for the Respondent accepted and agreed with a summary or statement of facts delivered orally by Counsel for the Applicant. It is not necessary to detail in this judgment all of the agreed facts. They are recorded and could be produced in transcript later should that be necessary. Among the agreed facts are the following: · the Applicant was employed as a customer service/consultant on 18 April 1995 under contract of employment of that date and a copy of the contract and a job description form were tendered as Exhibits as A2 and A3 respectively

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

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI-1686 of 1996 B E T W E E N : STELLA PATRICIA GILES Applicant AND AUSTRALIAN PERSONNEL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD Respondent MINUTES OF ORDERS Judicial Registrar Ryan 16 August 1996 THE COURT ORDERS: 1. That the application be dismissed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI-1686 of 1996 B E T W E E N : STELLA PATRICIA GILES Applicant AND AUSTRALIAN PERSONNEL SOLUTIONS PTY LTD Respondent Before: Ryan JR Place: Melbourne Date: 16 August 1996 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application for reinstatement by way of a claim of unlawful termination of employment. The application was lodged in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 8 May. A conciliation conference was held on 4 June and the matter was referred unresolved to the Court on 5 June. The Respondent asserts the Applicant was employed until 18 July and that there is no valid claim of unlawful termination of employment before the Court. Counsel agreed to resolve the preliminary issue of jurisdiction and no evidence was called. Counsel for the Respondent accepted and agreed with a summary or statement of facts delivered orally by Counsel for the Applicant. It is not necessary to detail in this judgment all of the agreed facts. They are recorded and could be produced in transcript later should that be necessary. Among the agreed facts are the following: · the Applicant was employed as a customer service/consultant on 18 April 1995 under contract of employment of that date and a copy of the contract and a job description form were tendered as Exhibits as A2 and A3 respectively

Read full text →