Federal Court of Australia
Industrial relations COURT OF AUSTRALIA
INDUSTRIAL LAW - alleged UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - whether termination at the initiative of the employer - no point of principle
Industrial Relations Act 1988 (now Workplace Relations Act 1996) - s 170DE, 170EA. Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd (No 2) (1995) 62 IR 200. MICHAEL JOHN BALLICO V BERTONA PTY LTD Trading as GAS CENTRE W.A. WI 1406 of 1996 R.D. FARRELL JR PERTH 24 MARCH 1998 IN THE industrial relations COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WI 1406 of 1996
BETWEEN: MICHAEL JOHN BALLICO
Applicant
AND: BERTONA PTY LTD Trading as GAS CENTRE W.A.
Respondent
court: RD FARRELL JR
DATE OF ORDER: 24 MARCH 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 1406 of 1996
BETWEEN: MICHAEL JOHN BALLICO
Applicant
AND: BERTONA PTY LTD Trading as GAS CENTRE W.A.
Respondent
court: RD FARRELL JR
DATE: 24 MARCH 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 Michael Ballico ("Mr Ballico"), by the respondent, Bertona Pty Ltd trading as Gas Centre W.A. ("the Company"). The unlawful termination provisions of the Act apply only where the termination is at the initiative of the employer: Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd (No 2) (1995) 62 IR 200. The Company contends that there was no termination at the initiative of the employer because Mr Ballico resigned his employment or, alternatively, because he abandoned it. Mr Ballico contends that, while he was absent from his employment, he had been granted leave for the period of his absence. He contends he did not resign, but was dismissed. He further contends that the Company breached Section 170DE of the Act, because it did not have a valid reason to terminate his employment. Finally, Mr Ballico contends that he was not paid the amount to which he was entitled on termination, even if the Court finds that he resigned.
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