Unlawful dismissal law further explained

In A. Cruickshank v Priceline Pty Ltd
[2007] AIRC 292
the applicant sought relief pursuant to s.643 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 following his termination of employment on 3 November 2006 by
Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, of which Priceline is a subsidiary.

It was argued by Priceline that the application should be
dismissed on the jurisdictional ground found in s.643(1)(a) of the Act,
in that there were genuine operational reasons, or reasons that
included genuine operational reasons, for the termination of employment
of the Applicant.

Even though the evidence showed that Priceline was undergoing a restructure following financial losses, the Applicant stated in his evidence that while he was
purportedly terminated due to redundancy, he subsequently found his job
advertised. He argued that where an employee is replaced by a new employee, in exactly
the same duties, that is a situation that is
a sham, notwithstanding some other financial difficulties.

Following Carter v Village Cinemas, the AIRC was satisfied that the Applicant’s termination resulted from the
Respondents financial difficulties and the subsequent decision to
reorganise its structure, and on that basis at least part of its
decision to terminate the Applicant was for a genuine operational
reason. It was not satisfied there is any evidence to substantiate a
“sham”, or that the Applicant was targeted inappropriately.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Your Compliance Support Plan

We understand you need a cost-effective way to keep up to date with regulatory changes. Talk to us about our fixed price plans.