Anthoness v The Forte Group Pty Ltd [1998] IRCA 31

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL LAW — TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT — UNLAWFUL TERMINATION — OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND — CONDUCT AND PERFORMANCE — VALID REASON – UNLAWFUL TERMINATION ON GROUNDS OF PREGNANCY — REINSTATEMENT IMPRACTICABLE — COMPENSATION — DISTRESS CAUSED BY TERMINATION — DAMAGES FOR FAILURE OF EMPLOYER TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO PROTECT EMPLOYEE FROM INJURY — ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES FOR NON-ECONOMIC LOSS CAUSED BY UNLAWFUL TERMINATION Workplace Relations Act 1996 (formerly known as Industrial Relations Act 1988) Sections 170DC, 170DE, 170DF(1)(f), 170EDA(2), 170EE Occupational Health & Safety Act, 1987, s.19

Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371 Perrin v Des Taylor Pty Ltd (1994) 58 IR 254 Liddell v Lembke (1994-95)1 IRCC 466 McLean v Tedman (1984) 56 ALR 359 Maria Burazin v Blacktown City Guardian Pty Limited (IRCA, Full Court, 13 December 1996, unreported decision no. 606/96) Victoria v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors (1996) 138 ALR 129 Qantas Airways Ltd v Christie [1998] HCA 18; (1998) 152 ALR 365 Johns v Gunns Ltd (1995) 60 IR 258 MIRELA ANTHONESS V THE FORTE GROUP PTY LIMITED NI 1519 of 1996

Before: MCILWAINE JR Place: SYDNEY Dates of hearing: 21 & 22 October 1996 & 21 March 1997 Date of judgment: 20 July 1998

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NI 1519 of 1996

BETWEEN:

Mirela Anthoness Applicant

AND

The Forte Group Pty Limited Respondent

ORDER Judicial Registrar: MCILWAINE Date of Order: 20 JULY 1998 Where Made: SYDNEY

THE COURT DECLARES THAT: 1. The Applicant was an employee of The Forte Group Pty Limited between 12 December 1994 and 13 December 1995. 2. The Respondent has contravened s 170DC of the Act. 3. The Respondent has contravened s 170DE(1) of the Act on the grounds that there was no valid reason for the termination of the employment of the Applicant on 13 December 1995. 4. The Respondent has contravened s170DF(1)(f) of the Act on the grounds of pregnancy. 5. It is impractical to reinstate the Applicant in any position with the Respondent. 6. It is appropriate to award compensation to the Applicant in the sum of Twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500). THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 8. The Respondent pay to the Applicant within twenty one days the amount of Twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500). 9. Any sum paid within twenty one days to the Australian Taxation Office, which the Respondent is obliged to pay on behalf of the Applicant or which can lawfully be made on her account, in respect of the sum ordered in paragraph 8 shall be pro tanto satisfaction of the obligations of the Respondent under that order. Kate Benson Legal Assistant to Judicial Registrar McIlwaine