//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1998] AIRC 156
defendant. The respondent employer's objection to the Commission exercising jurisdiction was dismissed. The application for relief in respect of termination of employment was referred for conciliation.
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
An employee, D Buffett, was dismissed by AAT Kings Tours. The company tried to stop the Industrial Relations Commission from hearing an unfair dismissal claim by arguing that Buffett was on a fixed-term contract, which would have excluded him from making a claim. However, the Commission found that Buffett was not on a fixed-term contract, so the company's objection failed and the case could proceed to conciliation.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
For the reasons given in proceedings I am satisfied that the applicant, D Buffett was not engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period of time at the time of his dismissal.
Accordingly the respondent employer's objection to the Commission exercising jurisdiction in this matter under Regulation 30B(1)(a) is dismissed. The application for relief in respect of termination of employment will be referred for conciliation.
Printed by Authority by the Commonwealth Government Printer
D Buffett
AAT Kings Tours Pty Ltd - 085/98 M Print P8901 [1998] AIRC 156;
The respondent employer's objection to the Commission exercising jurisdiction was dismissed. The application for relief in respect of termination of employment was referred for conciliation.