Bazzano v Warwick Bacon Company Warwick Pty Ltd [2006] QIRC 3 (2006) 181 QGIG 90

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, dated 20 January, 2006, Vol. 181, No. 3, pages 90-91] QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1999 - s. 74 - reinstatement Charlie Bazzano AND Warwick Bacon Company Warwick Pty Ltd (B/2005/941) COMMISSIONER BROWN 10 January 2006 DECISION On 24 June 2005 Mr Charlie Bazzano (the Applicant) lodged an application for reinstatement to his former position of labourer with Warwick Bacon Company Warwick Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The Applicant believed himself to have been unfairly dismissed because of the Respondent's failure to honour an agreement struck between the Applicant and the Respondent regarding the conditions under which the Applicant and Respondent would part company. On the information before the Commission the agreement (not reduced to writing) was that: 1. The employment relationship would cease; 2. The Respondent would meet certain medical costs; 3. The Respondent would attempt to secure financial assistance from AMES (a Victorian organisation that assisted the Applicant obtain employment with the Respondent) to relocate back to Victoria; and 4. The Applicant would be paid 3 weeks' wages. Given that the method by which the parties ended the relationship (by agreement), it is probable that the Commission lacks the jurisdiction to determine the matter in that there appears to be no termination at the hands of the employer. However, if, as was asserted by the Applicant, the Respondent reneged on components to the agreement to separate, it may well be that an employee leaving pursuant to an agreement subsequently not honoured, could be seen to be dismissed or constructively dismissed by the employer. It also could be argued that if the terms of an agreement to separate have not been honoured then an action aimed at enforcing the terms would be the appropriate method of seeking redress. The Applicant (self-represented) agreed that provisions 1 and 4 of the agreement were honoured. He believed that provisions 2 and 3 were not. As the evidence and submissions emerged, it became apparent to the Commission that the Respondent had indeed complied with the commitments given in 2 and 3. The Respondent did in fact pay for the medical costs and the Applicant's problem with respect to 3 (assistance to relocate) was that the approaches made by the Respondent to AMES for assistance to relocate the Applicant to Victoria, yielded no benefit to the Applicant. Whilst this was the source of some distress to the Applicant it was not a breach of the terms of the agreement between the Respondent and the Applicant. I find that the parting of the ways was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable and occurred by agreement. I dismiss the application. Order accordingly. D.K. BROWN, Commissioner. Hearing Details: 2005 11 October 5 December Appearances: Mr C. Bazzano on his own behalf. Mr G. Muir (of Employer Services) on behalf of the Respondent. Released: 10 January 2006 Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2006. -- 1 of 1 --