HEALD & FSU -V- GIO AUSTRALIA [1997] IRCA 191

DECISION NO:191/97 CATCHWORDS INDUSTRIAL LAW - complaint of UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - VALID REASON - company restructure - OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT - REDEPLOYMENT - CONDUCT AND PERFORMANCE - OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND - Workplace Relations Act 1996 ss170DC, 170DE(1), 170EA,

Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371 HEALD & FSU -V- GIO AUSTRALIA VI 1241 of 1997 Before : PARKINSON JR Place : MELBOURNE Date : 13 JUNE 1997 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI 1241 of 1997 B E T W E E N: James Matthew HEALD Applicant A N D GIO AUSTRALIA Respondent MINUTES OF ORDERS 13 JUNE 1997 PARKINSON JR THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application made pursuant to Section 170EA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 be dismissed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI 1241 of 1997 B E T W E E N: James Matthew HEALD Applicant A N D GIO AUSTRALIA Respondent REASONS FOR DECISION 13 JUNE 1997 PARKINSON JR This is a decision in relation to an application made pursuant to Section 170EA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The respondent is engaged in the provision of motor vehicle and other insurance. The applicants in this proceeding are the Finance Sector Union of Australia,('the FSU') and Mr Heald,('the applicant'). The applicant was employed by the respondent on 17 October, 1994, as a Level One employee in the underwriting area. As a consequence of a major restructuring exercise undertaken in 1996, the applicant was transferred to a new position as a Level One employee in the registry area. This new position involved performing mail and filing functions. The transfer occurred on 5 September, 1996. The respondent contends that the applicant did not perform his duties adequately in the position and that despite the respondent providing adequate training and assistance his work performance did not improve over a three month period. The respondent bears the onus of establishing, on balance of probability, that it had valid reason for the termination of the applicant's employment.