Ravet v Sydney Opera House [2006] NSWIRComm 163

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

CITATION: Ravet v Sydney Opera House [2006] NSWIRComm 163

PARTIES: Rory Meyer Ravet Sydney Opera House

FILE NUMBER(S): 5268 of 2005

CORAM: Grayson DP

Unfair dismissal - Doctrine of constructive dismissal - Resignation letter tendered by applicant - Repeated attempts by employer to dissuade applicant fromregaining CATCHWORDS: Held - No basis for conclusion that employer was real and effective terminator of contract of employment - Application dismissed

CASES CITED: Allison v Bega Valley Council (1995) 63 IR 72

HEARING DATES: 28/10/05, 08/05/06

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/19/2006

Applicant in person LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Ms C O'Brien, Human Resources Manager

JUDGMENT:

- 7 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

CORAM: Grayson, DP

19 May 2006

Matter No IRC 5268 of 2005

Rory Meyer RAVET and Sydney Opera House

Application by Rory Meyer Ravet re unfair dismissal pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996

DECISION

[2006] NSWIRComm 163

1 The applicant, Rory Ravet, was employed by the respondent, Sydney Opera House, as a casual staging mechanist. The employment which commenced on 10 December 2004, ended on 25 September 2005 by reason of the applicant's resignation. 2 It is alleged by the applicant that his resignation and the circumstances giving rise to it constitute an unfair dismissal involving the doctrine of constructive dismissal. 3 It is the respondent's position that the applicant could not on any objective analysis, be regarded as having been placed in a position where there was no alternative but to resign. To the contrary, he was urged virtually from the time the resignation was tendered, to withdraw it and he was invited to return to the workplace with an assurance that his continuing employment was not in any way at risk. The respondent renewed its offer of employment when the matter was before the Commission for conciliation and again at hearing. 4 The legal principles involving the constructive dismissal doctrine may be conveniently summarised by reference to the decision of the Full Commission in Allison v Bega Valley Council (1995) 63 IR 68 at 72 as follows: It is a trite observation that a contract of employment like any contract can come to an end in a number of ways. Termination can be " by " the employer where an employee is " dismissed " either with notice in accordance with the provisions of the contract or without notice in the event of serious and wilful misconduct. Both the employer and the employee may mutually agree that the contract of employment should come to an end. In other cases the employee may bring about the termination by resigning.