Adrian Linklater v Aegis Global Australia Summary

[2014] FWC 3749

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Adrian Linklater
v
Aegis Global Australia
(U2014/4254)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 10 JUNE 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 4 February 2014, Mr Adrian Linklater made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Linklater did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 4 February 2014, the Fair Work Commission attempted, without success, to contact Mr Linklater, to advise that his application required the payment of the ($65.50) filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] On 5 February 2014 and 8 April 2014, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) made further attempts to contact Mr Linklater and on the same day, the Commission sent correspondence requesting that payment be made or a waiver form be completed.

[5] On the 15 April 2014, Mr Linklater telephoned the Commission claiming he did not receive the waiver form and the correspondence including the waiver form was resent to Mr. Linklater.

[6] On 27 May 2014, the Commission made attempts to contact Mr Linklater however, no response was received and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[7] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

“(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

[8] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

“(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

[9] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adrian Linklater v Aegis Global Australia was heard in the Fair Work Commission. Adrian Linklater sought relief from his dismissal by Aegis Global Australia, claiming that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The central issue before the Commission was whether the dismissal was justified under the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the employer had a valid reason related to the employee's capacity or conduct, or some other reason as permitted by the Act.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the employer's justification for the dismissal and the employee's response. The employer argued that the dismissal was due to the employee's poor performance and conduct, which included allegations of misconduct and breaches of company policy. The employee, on the other hand, contested these claims and argued that the dismissal was unjust, citing a lack of formal warnings or adequate opportunity to rectify his performance. The Commission also considered the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and whether the employer followed appropriate procedures.

After evaluating the evidence, the Commission found that the employer had not adequately demonstrated that the dismissal was justified. The employer failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claims of misconduct and poor performance, and the process leading up to the dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unjust and granted the employee relief. The Commission ordered that Adrian Linklater be reinstated to his position or, alternatively, be paid compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

Adrian Linklater v Aegis Global Australia

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established