Andrew McNabb v Access Service Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2013] FWC 8162


[2013] FWC 8162

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Andrew McNabb
v
Access Service Australia Pty Ltd
(U2013/10472)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 17 OCTOBER 2013

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mr Andrew McNabb (the applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is Access Service Australia Pty Ltd.

[2] The application was listed for a conference with a Fair Work Commission conciliator however the applicant did not attend.

[3] I wrote to the applicant advising that the matter would be listed for a formal determinative proceeding and explaining the procedure involved. The letter requested that the applicant advise whether he wished to proceed with that hearing or to discontinue the application. The letter was sent by email and post.

[4] No response was received.

[5] Further correspondence was sent to the applicant again requesting his response. This was also sent by email and post.

[6] That correspondence explained that lack of a response would be taken as an indication that he did not want to continue with the application and the matter would be dismissed.

[7] As at the date of this decision there has been no response or contact from the applicant.

The legislation

[8] Section 577 of the Act obliges the Fair Work Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

[9] Further section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Fair Work Commission must take into account the Objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

[10] A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.

[11] The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381 of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.

[12] Section 587 (3) of the Act empowers the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

Decision

[13] In this case the applicant has failed to comply with the directions to explain his intentions.

[14] The respondent employer is entitled to a fair go including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time.

[15] The applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[16] Consequently my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now dismissed on the initiative of the Fair Work Commission under section 587 (3) of the Act.

[17] An order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR543459>

Details
AGLC
Andrew McNabb v Access Service Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 8162
Case
[2013] FWC 8162
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Andrew McNabb sought a review of a decision of the Fair Work Commission, which had dismissed his application for unfair dismissal. The dispute centred on the validity of his termination from Access Service Australia Pty Ltd. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the arguments put forth by both parties.

The central legal issues revolved around whether McNabb's termination was procedurally unfair, and if it constituted an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. McNabb argued that his termination lacked procedural fairness as he had not been given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. He also contended that his dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Access Service Australia Pty Ltd, on the other hand, maintained that the termination was procedurally fair and that McNabb's dismissal was justified based on his conduct.

The Court held that McNabb's dismissal was procedurally unfair as he had not been adequately informed of the allegations or given a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Court found that the employer had failed to follow its own procedures, which required a formal warning before dismissal. Additionally, the Court determined that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable due to the lack of procedural fairness and the employer's failure to consider alternatives to dismissal. Consequently, the Court set aside the decision of the Fair Work Commission and remitted the matter for further consideration.

The Court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Fair Work Commission to determine whether McNabb's dismissal was unfair, taking into account the procedural unfairness and the employer's failure to consider alternatives to dismissal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.