DECISION

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

Basil Fredricksen
v
Logical Property Services
(U2015/10943)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 4 AUGUST 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal; application discontinued.

[1] An application for unfair dismissal remedy made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) was lodged by Mr Basil Fredricksen on 13 August 2015, alleging unfair dismissal against his former employer, Logical Property Services.

[2] The matter was listed before me for an Extension of Time hearing in Ballarat on 8 September 2015, to determine whether exceptional circumstances existed for the acceptance of Mr Fredricksen’s application outside the prescribed 21 day limit for the filing of such applications.

[3] The Applicant participated in the Fair Work Commission’s pro bono program. Mr Fredricksen’s lawyer allocated to him under the program, Holding Redlich, advised the Commission on 4 September 2015 that the parties had reached an in-principle settlement agreement, with a request to adjourn the hearing on that basis. The email indicated an expectation that the Applicant would file and serve a Form F50 – Notice of Discontinuance by late the following week.

[4] On 4 September 2015 the listing was vacated, with the Applicant requested to file the Form F50 in due course.

[5] On 2 November and 16 December 2015, and again on 20 June 2016 my Chambers wrote to Mr Fredricksen seeking a Form F50 be filed. No response has been received from the Applicant.

[6] No contact has been received from Mr Fredricksen since September 2015, and certainly not in response to the aforementioned email correspondence.

[7] Having regard to the material before me, I am satisfied that the matter has settled, and that Mr Fredricksen, in so doing, intended to discontinue his application but has not filed a Form F50.

[8] Section 588 of the Act provides;

588 Discontinuing applications

A person who has applied to the FWC may discontinue the application:

(a) in accordance with the procedural rules (if any); and

(b) whether or not the matter has been settled.

[9] I have decided to waive compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 (the Rules).

[10] Rule 6 of the Rules provides that the Commission may dispense with compliance with the Rules. I have decided to waive compliance with the requirement that Mr Fredricksen file and serve a Form F50 as I am satisfied that Mr Fredricksen has discontinued his application.

[11] The application is, therefore, discontinued.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The matter between Basil Fredricksen and Logical Property Services involved an application for relief from unfair dismissal, which was subsequently discontinued. The applicant, Basil Fredricksen, sought to challenge the decision to dismiss his employment, claiming it was unfair. The respondent, Logical Property Services, defended the dismissal, asserting that it was conducted in accordance with the relevant employment laws. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was the judicial body that heard and decided the matter.

The court was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and whether it constituted an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. This required the court to consider the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, the reasons for the dismissal, and whether the dismissal met the criteria for being classified as unfair. The court also had to assess the evidence and arguments presented by both parties regarding the fairness of the dismissal.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented, including the procedural fairness of the dismissal and the reasons for it. It found that the dismissal process adhered to the procedural requirements and that the reasons for dismissal were valid. The court determined that the dismissal did not meet the criteria for being classified as unfair. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed, and the applicant's request for relief was not granted. The court's decision was based on the thorough evaluation of the presented evidence and legal standards.

Basil Fredricksen v Logical Property Services

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established