Baydon Johnson v Faulkner Farming Pty Ltd - [2024] FWC 1052

[2024] FWC 1052

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Baydon Johnson
v

Faulkner Farming Pty Ltd

(U2024/411)

COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD

SYDNEY, 22 APRIL 2024

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – lack of evidence that employee was under the influence of alcohol - no valid reason - dismissal unfair – compensation ordered

Background

Baydon Johnson (Mr Johnson) commenced employment with Faulkner Farming Pty Ltd (Faulkner Farming) on 17 October 2022 as an Assistant Manager for the Watermark Aggregation property. Faulkner Farming manages over 200,000 hectares of mixed farms in New South Wales and South Australia. This includes the Watermark Aggregation property in Curlewis, which is near Gunnedah in central New South Wales. Mr Johnson worked and resided on the Watermark Aggregation property with his family while he was employed by Faulkner Farming.

Mr Johnson was dismissed by Faulkner Farming on 5 January 2024 for alleged misconduct. The alleged misconduct was associated with Mr Johnson attending work on 4 January 2024 after consuming a considerable amount of alcohol after work in the evening of 3 January 2024. Mr Johnson was paid two weeks of wages in lieu of notice for termination.

On 11 January 2024, Mr Johnson made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) for a remedy, alleging that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with Faulkner Farming.

Faulkner Farming filed a Form F3 employer response form on 19 January 2024. The Form F3 did not identify any jurisdictional objections to Mr Johnson’s application.

Mr Johnson’s application was not resolved via conciliation. Given there are contested facts, the Commission is required to conduct a conference or hold a hearing pursuant to s.397 of the FW Act.

Directions were issued for the filing of material in relation to the application and permission was granted for both parties to be represented at a determinative conference/hearing via video on 17 April 2024. The matter was allocated to me after these steps had been taken.

Mr Johnson was represented by Mason Manwaring from Campbell Paton Taylor Solicitors at the determinative conference/hearing on 17 April 2024. Roland Hassall from Sparke Helmore Lawyers represented Faulkner Farming at the determinative conference/hearing.

At the commencement of the proceeding, I indicated my provisional view was that it was appropriate to conduct a hearing given both parties were legally represented. I sought the views of the parties and there was no opposition. The proceeding was conducted as a hearing.

Material relied upon

Mr Johnson

In addition to his Form F2 unfair dismissal application, Mr Johnson relied on the following evidence in support of his application:

· A witness statement from Mr Johnson dated 18 March 2024. The statement had the following documents attached:

-“A”: A copy of Mr Johnson’s Employment Agreement with Faulkner Farming dated 1 September 2022.

-“B”: A copy of screenshots of WhatsApp communications between Faulkner Farming employees, including Mr Johnson.

-“C”: A copy…

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 Baydon Johnson v Faulkner Farming Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Baydon Johnson v Faulkner Farming Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1052
Case: [2024] FWC 1052
Decision Date: 22 APRIL 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Baydon Johnson applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal against Faulkner Farming Pty Ltd. Faulkner Farming dismissed Mr Johnson for alleged misconduct on 5 January 2024, which related to him attending work on 4 January 2024 after consuming a considerable amount of alcohol after work in the evening of 3 January 2024. The Commission held a hearing on 17 April 2024. The central issue was whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal. The Commission found there was no valid reason for dismissal because there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr Johnson was under the influence of alcohol when he attended work on 4 January 2024. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was unjust and unreasonable and ordered that Faulkner Farming pay Mr Johnson $4,448.85 less tax and $693.42 in superannuation within 14 days of the date of the decision.

Orders