• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The factual dispute focussed on whether the applicant was appointed on a probationary/trial period determined in advance and of a duration captured by the exclusion. The respondent relied on evidence that at interview the applicant was told she would be placed on a "3 to 4 week trial employment period" and on a letter dated 4 October 2000 purportedly offering a "4 week trial period". The applicant denied receiving that letter and disputed the claim she was directly offered the job rather than being contacted through an employment agency. IPC Employment agency records produced in response to a summons did not indicate any trial or probationary period. The applicant commenced work on 12 October 2000 and was terminated on 27 October 2000.

Senior Deputy President Drake found the respondent had not discharged the onus of proving the requisite jurisdictional facts. He was not persuaded by the respondent's evidence that a trial period was determined in advance or that the 4 October letter had been sent before the applicant began employment. He also accepted that a later reference to a "4 week" period in the applicant's documents was part of settlement negotiation after termination, not contemporaneous proof of a prior probationary term. The Commission therefore found the applicant was not excluded by Regulation 30B(1)(c) and ordered the matter to proceed to arbitration.

Why the court decided this way

Two connected legal considerations determined the outcome.

First, the Commission applied the basic evidential principle that the party asserting a jurisdictional exclusion bears the onus of proving the facts that ground the exclusion. The decision states that "The obligation to establish the facts supporting the jurisdictional exclusion relied on rests upon the party alleging those facts." That allocation of burden is dispositive: where evidence is disputed, the party asserting exclusion must prove the pre-determination of a probationary period.

Second, the Commission applied the text of Regulation 30B(1)(c). The regulation excludes employees who are "serving a period of probation or a qualifying period of employment, if the duration of the period, or the maximum duration of the period, as the case may be, is determined in advance and, either: (i) the period, or the maximum duration, is 3 months or less; or (ii) the period, or the maximum duration: (A) is more than 3 months; and (B) is reasonable, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the employment." The regulation therefore requires, as a jurisdictional fact, that the probation/qualifying period and its duration or maximum duration be determined in advance. It is not enough that, after the event, a party describes the term as a trial or probationary period; the determination must exist contemporaneously with appointment and be proved.

Against these rules the Commission evaluated the available evidence: testimonial accounts purportedly recalling an oral statement at interview about a 3–4 week trial; a letter in the respondent's materials dated 4 October 2000; and IPC agency records which did not mention any trial. The Commission found the respondent's evidence insufficiently persuasive: it was not satisfied the applicant had been told at interview about a trial period, nor that the offer letter pre-dated commencement or had ever been sent. The Commission accepted the applicant's vantage that the 4 week reference later appearing in her materials was part of settlement negotiation, not contemporaneous evidence of a pre-determined probation.

The result followed straightforwardly: with the respondent unable to prove the jurisdictional fact, the exclusion did not operate and the Commission retained jurisdiction to hear the termination claim.

Before and after state of the law

Before this decision, the statutory framework was already set by the Workplace Relations Act and its Regulations. Regulation 30B(1)(c) created a specific jurisdictional exclusion for employees serving probationary/qualifying periods determined in advance and subject to the duration limits expressed in the regulation. The decision does not create a new rule of law; instead it applies established evidential and interpretive principles to those regulatory words.

After the decision, the practical guidance from this ruling is clear for practitioners and tribunals considering jurisdiction under Regulation 30B(1)(c):

• The party asserting exclusion must adduce credible, preferably contemporaneous, evidence that a trial/probationary period was both determined in advance and of the pertinent duration.
• Oral evidence as to what was said at interview can be accepted, but it is susceptible to credibility findings. Documentary or contemporaneous evidence (offer letters, agency records, express contractual terms) is likely to carry greater weight.
• Post-termination references to a trial period, or settlement communications referring to a 'trial', are not conclusive proof that a probationary term was fixed at the time of engagement.

Thus the decision reinforces a conservative approach to jurisdictional exclusion; tribunals will require cogent proof of pre-determined probationary arrangements before excluding access to statutory remedies.

Key passages with plain-English translation

1. "The obligation to establish the facts supporting the jurisdictional exclusion relied on rests upon the party alleging those facts."

   • Plain English: If you say the Court does not have power because the employee was on probation, it is up to you to prove that was the case.

2. "I was not persuaded that the applicant was told at her interview that the position to which she was being appointed had a trial period of 3 to 4 weeks, that Exhibit Luxford 3 came into existence before the applicant's employment commenced or that it was ever sent to the applicant."

   • Plain English: The Commission did not accept the respondent's story that the applicant was told at interview about a 3–4 week trial, and did not accept the letter the respondent relies on as having been sent before employment started.

3. "I was persuaded that the reference to a 4 week period in Annexure E to the applicant's statement (Exhibit Applicant 1) is a reference to a 4 week trial period proposed by the applicant by way of settlement of the outstanding matters between the parties."

   • Plain English: The mention of '4 weeks' in the applicant's papers was a settlement proposal after termination, not evidence of a pre-existing trial arrangement.

These passages encapsulate the ruling's focus on who carries the onus, the necessity for contemporaneous proof, and the treatment of later references as potentially explaining settlement bargaining rather than proving original terms.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision will be directly relevant when a respondent in an industrial jurisdiction case asserts exclusion under Regulation 30B(1)(c) on the basis of a probation or trial period. Triggering fact patterns include:

• A termination claim where the employer asserts the employee was engaged on a short fixed trial or probationary term (3 months or less, or longer but reasonable) and seeks to invoke the regulation to oust the tribunal's jurisdiction.
• Situations where the existence of a probation clause is disputed and there is no clear contemporaneous written contract or offer letter evidencing the probationary term.
• Cases where post-termination communications (settlement proposals, internal notes) contain references to a 'trial period' but contemporaneous agency or personnel records do not.

Under this decision, mere assertion of an oral probationary statement at interview, unsupported by reliable contemporaneous documentary evidence, is unlikely to be sufficient to establish the exclusion.

How later courts have treated it

This decision is a first instance decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (Senior Deputy President). It applies standard evidential principles and statutory interpretation to Regulation 30B(1)(c). It will be cited by practitioners and tribunals as persuasive authority for the following propositions:

• The onus of proof phrase: the party asserting a jurisdictional exclusion must prove it.
• The evidential value of contemporaneous documents over after-the-event references.
• The need for a probation period to have been determined in advance to engage the regulation.

Because this is a tribunal decision, later courts or tribunal panels considering analogous jurisdictional exclusions will likely treat it as persuasive rather than binding authority. The decision's weight will depend on factual similarity and the credibility of the evidence in each subsequent case.

Still-open questions

Although the decision resolves the dispute in this case, some questions remain open or fact-sensitive for future litigation:

1. What degree and kind of contemporaneous written evidence is necessary to satisfy the onus? The decision prefers contemporaneous documentation, but it does not specify whether an internally dated file note, an SMS, an agency confirmation or an unsigned draft would suffice.

2. When oral evidence is the only available proof of an advance-determined probationary period, what standards of corroboration or particularity must the oral testimony meet to discharge the onus? The decision shows credibility assessment matters, but does not set a test for minimum corroboration.

3. How should tribunals assess the reasonableness requirement for probation periods longer than three months under Regulation 30B(1)(c)(ii)(B)? The decision did not need to answer that question because the alleged period was short, but cases with longer agreed maxima will require development.

4. The decision treats post-termination references in settlement negotiations as not constituting proof of pre-determination. There may be intermediate cases where contemporaneous but informal communications (for example, a verbal statement at placement confirmed by a later internal memo) raise fine lines as to sufficiency.

5. Whether an offer issued but not actually received by the employee (for example posted but never delivered) can found the exclusion. The Commission here did not accept the respondent's contention that the offer was sent; different facts as to proof of sending might produce a different result.

Practitioners should therefore ensure that, where it is intended to rely on Regulation 30B(1)(c), contemporaneous, clear, and documented evidence of the probationary term is retained and produced. Conversely, claimants should scrutinise records and agency papers and challenge the authenticity and timing of alleged probationary documentation.

Conclusion Morris-Ross v Luxford Print is a practical, evidence-focused rulings about jurisdictional exclusions under the Regulations to the Workplace Relations Act. Its central takeaways are familiar yet important: a party asserting a statutory exclusion must prove the jurisdictional facts, contemporaneous documentation is powerful, credibility findings determine outcomes when evidence conflicts, and references after termination are not a substitute for proof that a probationary term was fixed at engagement.