DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Aaron James Weir
v
G&G Markwell
(U2021/3824)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 29 JUNE 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 4 May 2021, Aaron James Weir (the applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) against his former employer, “G&G Markwell”.

[2] A conciliation before a Commission staff conciliator was listed for the matter on 26 May 2021. The applicant did not attend the conciliation.

[3] My chambers sent correspondence to the applicant on 11 June 2021, directing him to advise us by 4:00pm on 18 June 2021 whether he still pressed his application. We did not receive a response from the applicant by that time.

[4] On 22 June 2021, my chambers sent further correspondence to the applicant, directing him to provide a response by 4:00pm on 25 June 2021. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[6] Section 587 of the Act provides:

“587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[7] The words, “[w]ithout limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[8] In the circumstances, I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Aaron James Weir, applied for an unfair dismissal remedy against his former employer, G&G Markwell. The dispute centred around the termination of Weir's employment and whether it complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the dismissal was procedurally fair, whether it was based on valid reasons, and whether the decision to dismiss was reasonable in the circumstances. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the employer had followed the correct procedures in terminating the employment and whether the reasons provided were justified.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the applicable legal principles. The applicant argued that the termination was not procedurally fair and that the reasons provided were insufficient. The employer contended that the dismissal was procedurally fair and that it had valid reasons, including allegations of misconduct and poor performance. The court evaluated the evidence and found that the employer had followed the correct procedural steps in terminating the employment. However, the court also found that the reasons provided were not valid, as they were based on assumptions and not on actual evidence. The court held that the dismissal was unfair due to the lack of valid reasons.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the applicant be reinstated to his former position and that he be paid compensation for the period of unlawful termination. The court also directed the employer to apologise to the applicant for the unfair dismissal. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that dismissals are procedurally fair and based on valid reasons, as required by the Fair Work Act 2009.

Aaron James Weir v G&G Markwell

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established