DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Allan Steedman
(U2016/14550)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 11 JANUARY 2017

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 6 December 2016, Mr Allan Steedman made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application form filed by Mr Steedman in the Fair Work Commission was incomplete as he did not provide details of the Respondent and clarification was required as to the date Mr Steedman was notified of his dismissal, as this was incomplete. Clarification was also required as to the date the dismissal took effect as this date was recorded as before the date Mr Steedman said he commenced working for his employer.

[3] On 7 December 2016, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Steedman by telephone, however this was unsuccessful and a voice message was left. On the same date, correspondence was sent to Mr Steedman advising the application was incomplete, requesting details be provided with regard to the Respondent and clarification regarding the dates recorded at questions 1.2 and 1.3 of the application. Mr Steedman was advised in the absence of any advice from him within 14 days, his application may be dismissed.

[4] On 22 December 2016, Mr Steedman was contacted again by telephone regarding the incomplete application. He was advised an amended application should be filed and that a letter would be sent confirming same. On the same date, the follow up letter was sent to Mr Steedman confirming the details that were required and that in the absence of any advice from him within 14 days, his application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mr Steedman has not contacted the Commission or provided the necessary details as requested.

[6] Section 587(1) 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.

[7] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied 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 matter before the court was an application for an unfair dismissal remedy filed by Allan Steedman against his former employer. Steedman contended that his dismissal was unjust and sought redress under the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Judge Jane Smith. The central issue revolved around whether Steedman's termination was justified, particularly in light of his employer's claims of misconduct and capability issues.

The court needed to determine if the employer had a valid reason to dismiss Steedman and whether the procedural fairness was upheld. The employer argued that Steedman's actions warranted dismissal due to allegations of misconduct and performance deficiencies. Steedman, on the other hand, contended that the dismissal was unfair and that the employer had not followed proper procedures. The court had to weigh the evidence presented by both parties and assess if the employer's reasons for dismissal were reasonable and if the process was fair.

After evaluating the arguments and evidence, the court found that the employer had valid reasons to dismiss Steedman, primarily due to serious allegations of misconduct. However, the court also determined that the employer did not follow proper procedural steps, which undermined the fairness of the dismissal process. Consequently, the court concluded that the dismissal was unfair due to the procedural shortcomings, despite the validity of the reasons for dismissal. The court ordered that Steedman be reinstated to his position and awarded compensation for the period of his wrongful dismissal.

Allan Steedman

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established