Ward v Saipem Australia Pty Ltd [1998] IRCA 8

industrial relations COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INDUSTRIAL LAW - alleged UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - whether PROHIBITED REASON - representative of employees - whether termination for a VALID REASON - whether disobedience of lawful and reasonable direction - whether applicant entitled to notice - whether SERIOUS MISCONDUCT Industrial Relations Act 1988 (now Workplace Relations Act 1996) - ss 170DB, 170DC, 170DE, 170DF, 170EA, & 170EDA. North v Television Corp Ltd (1976) 11 ALR 599 Gibson v Bosmac Pty Limited (1995) 60 IR 1. Bartucciotto v Euro Printing Co Pty Ltd (unreported IRCA No. 72 of 1996, Von Doussa J, 21 February 1996) Izdes v LG Bennett & Co Pty Ltd (1995) 61 IR 439. Kumar v Prima Furniture (NSW) Pty Ltd (1997) 73 IR 349. Cosco Holdings Pty Ltd v Thu Thi Van Do (unreported, Federal Court Judgment No. 1353 of 1997, Northrop, Lindgren and Lehane JJ, 4 December 1997). RONALD WARD V SAIPEM AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED WI 1111 of 1996 R.D. FARRELL JR PERTH 17 FEBRUARY 1998

IN THE industrial relations COURT OF AUSTRALIA

western australia DISTRICT REGISTRY WI 1111 of 1996

court: RD Farrell jr

DATE OF ORDER: 17 february 1998

WHERE MADE: perth

THE COURT orders THAT:

1. The application is dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

IN THE industrial RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA

western australia DISTRICT REGISTRY wi 1111 of 1996

BETWEEN: ronald ward

AND: saipem australia pty limited

court: rd farrell jr

DATE: 17 february 1998

PLACE: perth

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application under Section 170EA of the then Industrial Relations Act 1988 now known as the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ("the Act") for compensation arising from the alleged unlawful termination of the employment of the applicant, Mr Ronald Ward ("Mr Ward"), by the respondent, Saipem Australia Pty Limited ("Saipem"). Reinstatement is not sought and I am satisfied that it is not practicable.