DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Andrew Matthews
v
Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd
(U2016/10876)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE

SYDNEY, 19 JANUARY 2017

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] This decision arises from an application by Mr Andrew Matthews for an extension of time for lodgement of an application for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Matthews’ employment ended on 2 May 2016. Mr Matthews lodged his application for unfair dismissal remedy with the Fair Work Commission (Commission) on 1 September 2016. For his application to have been lodged within the time limits prescribed by the Act Mr Matthews’ application should have been made by 23 May 2016. Mr Matthews’ application is 101 days out of time.

[3] Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd (Redflex) objects to Mr Matthews’ application on a number of grounds including that the application was out of time, the dismissal was a genuine redundancy and that Mr Matthews’ earned more than the high income threshold.

[4] I wrote to Mr Matthews on 13 September 2016 outlining the matters I was required to consider by the Act in respect of an extension of time and requesting that he respond within 14 days. A response was received from Mr Matthews on 26 September 2016.

[5] I heard Mr Matthews’ application for an extension of time in Sydney on 4 November 2016. Both parties appeared at this hearing. Given the nature of the objections raised by Redflex I put to the parties that it would be more convenient to deal with the extension of time application and the objection in respect of the high income threshold jointly. There was no objection to this course. Following the hearing I provided both parties with a further opportunity to file any material in relation to the jurisdictional objections and in particular the matters raised during the hearing.

High Income Threshold

[6] Section 382 of the Act provides:

“382 When a person is protected from unfair dismissal

A person is protected from unfair dismissal at a time if, at that time:

(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and

(b) one or more of the following apply:

(i) a modern award covers the person;

(ii) an enterprise agreement applies to the person in relation to the employment;

(iii) the sum of the person’s annual rate of earnings, and such other amounts (if any) worked out in relation to the person in accordance with the regulations, is less than the high income threshold.”

[7] At the time of Mr Matthews’ dismissal, the high income threshold was $136,700. Mr Matthews has not asserted that he was covered by a modern award or that an enterprise agreement applied to him in relation to his employment.

[8] Redflex submits that the sum of Mr Matthews’ earnings including his…

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 Andrew Matthews v Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Andrew Matthews v Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 353
Case: [2017] FWC 353
Decision Date: 19 JANUARY 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Andrew Matthews brought an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court. Matthews had been employed by Redflex as a camera operator for speed enforcement cameras. His employment was terminated following an investigation into his conduct, which included allegations of misconduct and misuse of equipment. Matthews argued that his dismissal was unfair and sought reinstatement or compensation.

The court had to determine whether Matthews' dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether it complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Central to this was whether the employer had just cause for dismissal and whether the procedures followed were fair. The court also had to consider whether Redflex provided Matthews with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

In assessing the matter, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It considered the procedural fairness of Redflex's investigation and decision-making process, as well as the substantive fairness of the dismissal. The court found that Redflex had acted reasonably in investigating the allegations and that the evidence supported the decision to terminate Matthews' employment. The court held that the dismissal was not unfair as Redflex had just cause and followed fair procedures.

The court dismissed Matthews' application for relief from unfair dismissal. The judge ruled that Redflex had demonstrated that the termination was justified and procedurally fair, thereby upholding the dismissal. The decision was final, with no orders for reinstatement or compensation.

Orders