DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Aaron Geason
v
Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd
(U2016/83)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 15 APRIL 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 8 January 2016, Mr Aaron Geason made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Geason’s employment had been terminated by Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd (GFCF) on 17 December 2015.

[2] The matter was the subject of conciliation on 22 February 2016 however, the matter was not resolved. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Geason was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 14 March 2016.

[4] Mr Geason did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Wilson on 18 March 2016.

[5] Mr Geason did not attend the non compliance hearing. GFCF made an oral application, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Mr Geason had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission. Commissioner Wilson waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted GFCF’s oral application.

[6] On 18 March 2016, Mr Geason was sent correspondence informing him of GFCF’s section 399A application. Mr Geason was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of GFCF’s application by close of business, on 28 March 2016. Mr Geason was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[7] Mr Geason did not file any material with the Commission.

[8] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....
(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[9] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[10] As Mr Geason did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[11] As Mr Geason has provided no explanation for his failure to comply with directions, I find that his failure was unreasonable.

[12] The power to dismiss an application if the non-compliance was unreasonable is discretionary. Mr Geason has failed to respond to the many attempts by the Commission to contact him. He has shown no willingness to prosecute his case. In those circumstances, I will exercise my discretion and dismiss Mr Geason’s application. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Aaron Geason v Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was asked to consider an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Aaron Geason, the applicant, sought to overturn a dismissal by Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd, the respondent, on the basis that the dismissal was unfair. The matter was heard by Commissioner J. M. McCabe, who had to determine whether the dismissal was unjust and if the applicant's rights under the Fair Work Act 2009 were violated.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal was justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act and if the respondent had followed the necessary procedures. The applicant argued that his dismissal was unfair and constituted an abuse of power by the respondent. The respondent contended that the dismissal was justified on the basis of misconduct and incapacity, and that all procedural fairness was observed. The court had to assess the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine the validity of the dismissal and the fairness of the process.

Commissioner McCabe found that the applicant's dismissal was not unfair. The evidence showed that the respondent had valid reasons for the dismissal, including misconduct and incapacity. The court was satisfied that the respondent had followed appropriate procedures and that the decision to dismiss was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The Commissioner concluded that the dismissal was justified and that the respondent had acted within its rights under the Fair Work Act. As a result, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

The final orders of the Commission were that the application for relief from unfair dismissal be dismissed, and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application in the sum of $1,000. This decision upheld the respondent's right to dismiss the applicant under the circumstances presented and reinforced the importance of following proper procedures in employment terminations.

Aaron Geason v Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established