Anthony Honnery v Specialised Waste Treatment Services Pty Ltd T/A Specialised Waste Treatment Services

[2017] FWC 3388

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Anthony Honnery

Specialised Waste Treatment Services Pty Ltd T/A Specialised Waste Treatment Services

(U2017/1535)

Commissioner Saunders

NEWCASTLE, 23 JUNE 2017

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application dismissed

This decision relates to an unfair dismissal application by Mr Anthony Honnery pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) against his former employer, Specialised Waste Treatment Services Pty Ltd T/A Specialised Waste Treatment Services.

The applicant and respondent attended a directions hearing by telephone on 19 May 2017, following which directions were issued and a hearing date set for 12 July 2017. The applicant was directed to file and serve an outline of submissions, witness statements and other documentary material in support of his application, by 4.00pm on Friday, 9 June 2017. This material was not filed and served within that timeframe, nor has it been filed at any subsequent time.

On 19 June 2017 the applicant was sent an email from our chambers requesting that he file and serve his material. The applicant was also telephoned twice on 21 June 2017 by our chambers, but there was no answer. On 22 June 2017 the applicant was notified in writing that if he did not file and serve material in relation to his unfair dismissal application by midday Friday, 23 June 2017, his unfair dismissal application would be dismissed. The Commission did not receive any communication from the applicant after 19 May 2017.

For the reasons set out in the previous two paragraphs, I have decided to exercise my discretion pursuant to s.587(1) of the Act to dismiss the applicant’s unfair dismissal application against the respondent in these proceedings. The application is therefore dismissed and the hearing date on 12 July 2017 is vacated.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Anthony Honnery, sought relief from the Fair Work Commission in relation to his dismissal by the respondent, Specialised Waste Treatment Services Pty Ltd T/A Specialised Waste Treatment Services. The applicant claimed that his dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and therefore unfair, within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was unfair and, if so, whether there were any mitigating factors that would warrant a reduction in the remedy that the applicant was entitled to receive.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the respondent had valid and sufficient reasons for the applicant's dismissal and whether the respondent had followed a fair process in terminating the applicant's employment. Additionally, the Commission considered whether the applicant's conduct warranted dismissal and, if so, whether the dismissal was proportionate to the conduct. The Commission also had to assess whether any mitigating factors existed that would warrant a reduction in the remedy.

The Commission found that the respondent had valid and sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicant, primarily due to the applicant's involvement in a serious incident at the workplace where he had driven a company vehicle in a dangerous manner. The Commission determined that the respondent had followed a fair process in terminating the applicant's employment, as the applicant had been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The Commission further found that the applicant's conduct warranted dismissal, as it constituted a serious breach of the company's policies and posed a risk to the safety of others at the workplace. Finally, the Commission concluded that there were no mitigating factors that would warrant a reduction in the remedy, and therefore dismissed the applicant's application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established