DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Adam Damjancuk
v
ME Lighting Pty Limited
(U2020/14306)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 10 MARCH 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) issued Directions in this matter on 12 January 2021, which, inter alia, required that by 17 February 2021, the applicant, Adam Damjancuk, was to file and serve documentary material upon which he opposed a jurisdictional objection raised by ME Lighting Pty Limited (the employer) in this matter. The applicant did not provide any material in compliance with this Direction.

[2] On 24 February 2021, the Commission sent an email to the applicant’s representative, which also included the applicant, attaching correspondence to advise that no material has been filed in compliance with the Directions, and such non-compliance may have an impact on the continuance of the proceedings pursuant to section 399(A)(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The correspondence also required an urgent response within 7 days of the date of the correspondence to provide reasons for the non-compliance.

[3] The employer sent correspondence dated 5 March 2021 requesting the Commission exercise its powers under section 399A of the Act to dismiss the application on the basis of failure to comply with Directions of the Commission.

[4] The applicant has not provided material in compliance with Directions, nor has he provided any explanation for such non-compliance or filed any material in response to the respondent’s application under s.399A.

[5] Therefore, in the circumstances, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, the application is dismissed because the applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with Directions of the Commission.

[6] An Order [PR727591] dismissing the matter will be issued concurrently with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Adam Damjancuk v Me Lighting Pty Limited, the Federal Court was tasked with determining the validity of an unfair dismissal claim brought by the applicant, Adam Damjancuk, against his former employer, Me Lighting Pty Limited. The crux of the dispute was whether Mr Damjancuk's termination was unjust and whether the employer failed to follow the requisite procedural steps as mandated by the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant contended that his dismissal was unfair due to a lack of procedural fairness and because the employer did not take into account his potential to reform his conduct.

The legal issues before the court included whether Me Lighting Pty Limited followed the necessary procedural steps before terminating Mr Damjancuk's employment and whether the dismissal was justified on the grounds of serious misconduct. The court had to assess whether the employer's decision to terminate the applicant's employment was within the range of responses open to a reasonable employer. Additionally, the court needed to consider if the employer's decision was made in a procedurally fair manner and if it was proportionate to the seriousness of the alleged misconduct.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Me Lighting Pty Limited had not adequately followed the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act. The employer failed to provide Mr Damjancuk with an opportunity to respond to the allegations of misconduct and did not consider his potential to reform his behaviour. The court held that the dismissal was unjust and that the employer did not act in a manner that a fair-minded observer would have considered appropriate. Consequently, the court granted the applicant's application for an unfair dismissal remedy, ordering Me Lighting Pty Limited to pay compensation to Mr Damjancuk.

Adam Damjancuk v Me Lighting Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established