Case v Charney Creek Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 552

DECISION NO:552/96 IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI 1680 of 1996 B E T W E E N: Natasha Fiona CASE Applicant A N D CHARNLEY CREEK PTY LTD Respondent REASONS FOR DECISION 25 October 1996 PARKINSON JR This is a decision in relation to an application made pursuant to Section 170EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 ( the Act ). Leave was granted to the applicant to bring a claim in the accrued jurisdiction of the Court alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1985 (Vic). This claim, which was set out in an Amended Statement of Claim dated 18 October 1996, included a claim that the respondent had breached the employment contract between the parties, by terminating the employment earlier than the time fixed for expiration of the contract and a claim that the respondent had represented that the employment was for a term of not less than 12 months and that such representation was false and misleading and negligent. Further that the respondent was in breach of s11 and s14 of the Fair Trading Act 1985 (Vic) in that it offered employment on terms which it knew to be false or misleading. There was no claim for reasonable notice of termination of employment at common law. In any event, as will be seen later in this decision, the terms of a State Award were applied by the parties to the agreement and the notice provision required one week. This was the period of notice given by the respondent. The applicant was a university student full time in 1995 when she became aware of a position being offered at the respondent's legal practice. The position was advertised on a student employment service noticeboard. The information contained in the advertisement was completed by a person in the student employment service, apparently on the basis of information supplied by the potential employer or an agent of that employer. The advertisement provided that the position being offered was a full time position as a receptionist/law clerk. A wage rate of $381.00 per week was specified in the advertisement together with the hours of work. In addition when the position was described, the following statements were made: " General office duties & law clerk duties. Would (sic) suit law student wishing to defer a year. " The applicant's evidence is that in the course of the interview with Mrs Hogg, a principal of the legal practice and a director of the respondent, she made clear her intentions as to deferring her university course and that the deferral would be subject to obtaining full time employment until the end of the year. It was her intention to earn sufficient money to support her undertaking post graduate studies in the United States of America. Her evidence was that if she were accepted for such post graduate studies, she intended finishing work with the respondent in December, 1996. I am satisfied that the applicant had at the time of the application for the position already taken steps to defer her university courses in 1996. This is evident from the application for employment dated December 11, 1995 and the evidence of the applicant in the proceedings.