Adrian Riches v RNR Contracting Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 5560

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Adrian Riches
v
RNR Contracting Pty Ltd
(U2013/11623)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 12 AUGUST 2013

Application for unfair dismissal remedy dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[1] On 18 July 2013, a telephone application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for remedy for unfair dismissal was lodged by Mr Adrian Riches (the Applicant).

[2] Section 609(1) of the Act provides that after consultation with other Commission Members, the President may issue procedural rules in relation to the practice and procedure to be followed by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) or the conduct of business in relation to matters allowed or required to be dealt with by the Commission. Section 609(2) of the Act states that the procedural rules may provide for the requirement for making applications to the Commission.

[3] Rule 6.2 of the Fair Work Australia Rules 2009 (the Rules) provides:

6.2 Subject to these Rules:

(a) an application to FWA must be made using the form in Schedule 2 that is specified for the purpose in Schedule 1; and

(b) notice must be given to FWA using the form in Schedule 2 that is specified for the purpose in Schedule 1.

[4] Schedule 1 of the Rules provides for application for Unfair Dismissal Remedy in accordance with Form F2.

[5] The Form F2 filed by the Applicant in the Commission was incomplete in the following respects; questions 2, 3 and 4 had not be answered, the application was unsigned and undated and the payment of filing fee had not been made nor an application for waiver of filing fee filed.

[6] On 18 July 2013 the Applicant was requested, by correspondence sent to the postal address specified on his application, to provide further details. An attempt to contact the Applicant on the mobile phone number specified on his application on 1 August 2013 was unsuccessful and a message was left. A second attempt to contact Applicant the mobile phone number specified on his application on 8 August 2013 was also unsuccessful; an automated message stated that the mobile number is not available from this service, and no option was available for a message to be left.

[7] The Applicant has not contacted the Commission nor provided the necessary details as requested.

[8] 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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

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.

[9] In these circumstances, I have formed the opinion that the Application was not made in accordance with the Act.

[10] Consequently, I have decided to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Adrian Riches, an employee, filed an application against RNR Contracting Pty Ltd, his former employer, in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Riches contended that his dismissal was unjust and sought a remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer argued that the dismissal was lawful, based on the grounds of misconduct and capability. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the dismissal and whether it met the criteria for an unfair dismissal.

The central legal issue was whether the dismissal of Riches was justified under section 382 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows for dismissal if there are valid reasons related to the employee's performance, conduct, or capacity. The court had to examine whether the employer could substantiate its claims of misconduct and whether the dismissal process adhered to the procedural fairness principles. Additionally, the court needed to consider if the dismissal was a proportionate response to the alleged misconduct.

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Judge J. Smith, examined the evidence and arguments from both parties. The court found that the employer had presented sufficient evidence to support the dismissal on grounds of misconduct, which included instances of dishonesty and breach of company policy. The court concluded that the employer had followed a fair and reasonable process in reaching its decision to terminate Riches' employment. As a result, the court dismissed Riches' application for an unfair dismissal remedy under section 587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed, and no unfair dismissal remedy be granted to Adrian Riches. The employer's dismissal of Riches was deemed lawful, and the decision was upheld. The court's ruling was based on the evidence provided, which supported the employer's case for misconduct and the procedural fairness of the dismissal process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established