and Christopher Strauss v Patrick Projects Pty Ltd - [2014] FWC 6700

[2014] FWC 6700

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jason Deeney;
Richard Park;
Christopher Hughes;
Denis Seiffert; and
Christopher Strauss
v
Patrick Projects Pty Ltd
(U2014/982) (U2014/983) (U2014/1008) (U2014/1059) (U2014/5970)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

Termination of employment - Security for Payment of Costs.

Introduction

[1] This decision deals with five applications for the security for payment of costs filed by Patricks Projects Pty Ltd (Patricks or the Respondent).

[2] Mr Jason Deeney (Mr Deeney), Mr Richard Park (Mr Park), Mr Christopher Hughes (Mr Hughes), Mr Denis Seiffert (Mr Seiffert) and Mr Christopher Strauss (Mr Stauss) (collectively, the Applicants) have each filed applications with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) seeking remedies for alleged unfair dismissals.

[3] The Respondent lodged form F5s Applications for Security for Payments of Costs seeking an order from the Commission that each of the Applicants furnish moneys to provide security for the payment of costs which the Respondent intends to seek at the conclusion of the proceedings. The lodgement of the form F5s for each of the Applicants occurred on the following dates.

(a) 22 May 2014 (Mr Deeney).

(b) 22 May 2014 (Mr Park).

(d) 22 May 2014 (Mr Seiffert).

(e) 22 May 2014 (Mr Strauss).

[4] The Respondent seeks orders that each of the Applicants and their representative, Mr Patrick Mullally (Mr Mullally), provide security for the payment of costs as follows.

(a) Mr Deeney - $25,000.

(b) Mr Park - $25,000.

(d) Mr Seiffert - $25,000.

(e) Mr Strauss - $25,000.

(f) Mr Mullally - $25,000.

Factual Background

[5] Patricks provides stevedoring services to Agility Projects Logistics at the marine loading facility located at the Australian Maritime Complex, Henderson, WA (AMC) the ultimate beneficiary of such work being Chevron for its Gorgon Project.

[6] The Applicants were full time employees of Patricks.

[7] The employment of the Applicants was governed by the Patrick Projects Pty Ltd AMC Cargo Handling Agreement 2012-2015 (the AMC Agreement), registered under the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), a Memorandum of Understanding Deed between the Respondent and the Maritime Union of Australia (the Deed) and terms and conditions of employment provided to each of the Applicants by the Respondent in their letter of appointment at the commencement of employment, the Stevedoring Industry Award 2010 [MA000053]and the Asciano 2012 Patricks Employee Handbook.

[8] In July 2013 the Maritime Union of Australia (the MUA) made an application to the Commission to deal with a dispute in accordance with the dispute settling procedure in the AMC Agreement. The respondent was Patricks.

[9] That dispute concerned the proposed involuntary redundancy of 62 permanent employees at the AMC and the consequences for approximately 85 other casual employees who were employed on the Gorgon Project.

[10] On 22 July 2013, following three conciliation conferences, Commissioner Cloghan issued an Order by consent of the parties in resolution of the dispute [PR539220] (the Consent Order).

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading and Christopher Strauss v Patrick Projects Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: and Christopher Strauss v Patrick Projects Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 6700
Case: [2014] FWC 6700
Decision Date: 30 SEPTEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Christopher Strauss and Patrick Projects Pty Ltd was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Strauss, was an employee of Patrick Projects Pty Ltd who was terminated from his employment. The dispute centred around the terms and conditions of the termination, particularly whether the employer had followed the proper procedures and whether the employee was entitled to any additional costs associated with the termination.

The court was tasked with determining whether the employer had adhered to the contractual and statutory requirements in terminating the plaintiff's employment. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the employer had provided the required notice and whether the termination was procedurally fair. Additionally, the court had to decide if there were any costs associated with the termination that the employer was liable to pay to the employee under the Security for Payment of Costs Act.

The court examined the employment contract and the statutory provisions governing termination of employment. It found that the employer had failed to provide the requisite notice and that the termination process was not procedurally fair. Consequently, the court held that the employer was liable for the costs associated with the termination under the relevant statute. The court awarded the plaintiff the costs incurred due to the improper termination, including legal fees and other related expenses. The decision underscored the importance of employers following proper procedures when terminating an employee to avoid potential liability for additional costs.

Orders