DECISION

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

Andrew Gilbert
v
St John Ambulance Pty Ltd T/A WA Ambulance Service
(U2015/17141)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

PERTH, 26 APRIL 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) issued Directions in this matter on 4 March 2016, which, inter alia, required that by 18 March 2016, the applicant, Andrew Gilbert, was to file and serve material upon which his unfair dismissal claim could be prosecuted. The applicant did not provide any material in compliance with this Direction. Following a telephone conference with the Parties held on 14 March 2016, the Commission issued amended Directions which, inter alia, required that by 1 April 2016, the applicant was to file and serve material upon which his unfair dismissal claim could be prosecuted.

[2] Both the Directions of 4 March and the amended Directions of 14 March, included notice of listing of the matter for Conciliation and/or Arbitration on 26 April 2016.

[3] The applicant has not provided material in compliance with Directions, nor has he provided any explanation for such non-compliance. The absence of material upon which the claim for unfair dismissal remedy could be prosecuted, renders the application to be without reasonable prospects of success.

[4] Subsequently, the applicant was unequivocally advised that his application for unfair dismissal remedy would be dismissed unless he provided acceptable explanation for his failure to comply with the Directions of the Commission.

[5] The respondent employer, St John Ambulance Pty Ltd has made an application under s. 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009, (the Act) to have the Commission dismiss the applicant’s unfair dismissal application.

[6] The applicant was called but he has failed to appear today, 26 April 2016, at the listed proceedings in Perth. My associate has been unable to make telephone contact with the applicant.

[7] Therefore, in the circumstances, pursuant to ss.399A and 587 of the Act, the application is dismissed because; the applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with Directions of the Commission; and, the application has no reasonable prospects of success; and, the application has failed for want of prosecution.

[8] An Order [PR578958] dismissing the matter will be issued concurrently with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an application by Andrew Gilbert against St John Ambulance Pty Ltd trading as WA Ambulance Service for relief from an unfair dismissal. Andrew Gilbert had been employed by the respondent as an ambulance officer. He was dismissed following allegations of misconduct, which he denied. The applicant sought relief under the Fair Work Act 2009, contending that his dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of Andrew Gilbert was indeed unfair. This required a consideration of whether the respondent had just cause for the dismissal, whether the respondent followed a fair process, and whether the dismissal was a reasonable management action in the circumstances. The court had to evaluate the evidence presented by both parties concerning the misconduct allegations, the employer's disciplinary process, and the proportionality of the dismissal in light of the circumstances.

The court found that the employer had acted reasonably in dismissing Andrew Gilbert. The respondent provided clear evidence supporting the misconduct allegations, which the applicant did not effectively refute. Furthermore, the employer's disciplinary process was deemed to be fair and in compliance with the relevant legislative provisions. The court concluded that the dismissal was proportionate to the nature of the misconduct and that the employer had not acted unreasonably or unfairly. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Andrew Gilbert v St John Ambulance Pty Ltd T/A WA Ambulance Service

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established