Federal Court of Australia
DECISION NO: 464/96 C A T C H W O R D S INDUSTRIAL LAW - termination of employment - redundancy - whether breach of award - vitiated valid reason for termination Industrial Relations Act 1988 ss.170DE, 170EA CASES: Kenefick v Australian Submarine Corporation (No 1) (1995) 62 IR 107
Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Limited (1995) 62 IR 371
APESMA v Deniliquin Council (1995) Moore J, 134 ALR 267; IR 451
Kenefick v Australian Submarine Corporation (1996) Full Court decision, 65 IR 366
Byrne v Australian Airlines Limited (1995) 131 ALR 422
Gibson v Bosmac Pty Limited, (1995) 60 IR 1 EARLE SENEVIRATNE -v- GRIBBLES PATHOLOGY No. VI-1264 of 1996 Before: Ryan JR Place: Melbourne Date: 20 September 1996
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI-1264 of 1996 B E T W E E N : EARLE SENEVIRATNE Applicant AND GRIBBLES PATHOLOGY Respondent MINUTES OF ORDERS Judicial Registrar Ryan 20 September 1996 THE COURT ORDERS: 1. That the application is 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-1264 of 1996 B E T W E E N : EARLE SENEVIRATNE Applicant AND GRIBBLES PATHOLOGY Respondent Before: Ryan JR Place: Melbourne Date: 20 September 1996 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Delivered Ex Tempore The Applicant worked as a medical laboratory technologist for 35 years. He worked for a predecessor of the Respondent from 1988 to 1990 and with the Respondent from August 1990 to 19 January 1996. Throughout his 5˝ years with the Respondent, he worked night-shift from 4 pm until midnight, and possibly later. On 19 January 1996, at the start of the night-shift, probably about 4.15 pm, the manager of the Frankston laboratory of the Respondent told the Applicant that the Respondent's National Operations Manager, Mrs Fay Shelton, had instructed him to give the Applicant a letter of redundancy. The Applicant initially refused to accept the letter, stating that he had been employed by the Managing Director, Wallis Cameron, and that if he was to be dismissed it was Mr Cameron who should do the deed. Later in the shift, he collected the letter. The letter reads as follows: "Dear Earle
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