DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Blake Diplock
v
Glenmore Motors Pty Ltd
(U2016/2599)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 7 SEPTEMBER 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 1 June 2016, Mr Blake Diplock filed a Form F1 – Application (No Specific Form Provided) in the Fair Work Commission.

[2] The Form F1 sought orders for alleged unpaid wages, alleged payment in lieu of notice, alleged annual leave on termination, alleged redundancy entitlement and alleged unpaid superannuation contributions.

[3] On 2 June 2016, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Diplock several times on his mobile phone and a voicemail could not be left. On the same day, the Registry sent correspondence to Mr Diplock advising that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to enforce unpaid wages, payment in lieu of notice, annual leave on termination, redundancy pay or superannuation and referred Mr Diplock to the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Australian Taxation Office. The letter advised that should Mr Diplock wish to lodge an unfair dismissal application, he would need to lodge using a Form F2 application form.

[4] On 21 June 2016, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Diplock on his mobile phone and a voicemail was left requesting he telephone the Commission. On the same day, Mr Diplock forwarded a copy of a completed Fair Work Ombudsman ‘Request for assistance – workplace dispute’ to the Commission.

[5] On 22 June 2016, the Commission contacted Mr Diplock on his mobile phone and a voicemail was left requesting he telephone the Commission. On the same day, the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Diplock advising him that he had sent a Fair Work Ombudsman application to the Fair Work Commission, that his Fair Work Ombudsman application would not be forwarded, and that he would need to contact the Fair Work Ombudsman directly.

[6] On 23 June 2016, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Diplock on his mobile phone and a voicemail was left requesting he telephone the Commission.

[7] On 29 June 2016 and 14 July 2016, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Diplock on his mobile phone and a voicemail was left requesting he telephone the Commission. On the same day, the Commission forwarded correspondence to Mr Diplock advising that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with his application and referred him to the Fair Work Ombudsman’s Office and the Australian Taxation Office. Again, the letter advised that should Mr Diplock wish to lodge an unfair dismissal application, he would need to lodge same on a Form F2 application.

[8] On 3 August 2016, the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Diplock advising that in the absence of any advice from him within 14 days from the date of the correspondence, the application may be dismissed.

[9] On 17 August 2016, the Commission sent further correspondence to Mr Diplock advising that in the absence of any advice from him within 14 days from the date of the correspondence, the application may be dismissed.

[10] To date, no response has been received from Mr Diplock.

[11] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

[12] In these circumstances, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the Act.

[13] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Diplock v Glenmore Motors Pty Ltd involved an application for relief from unfair dismissal. Blake Diplock, the applicant, sought redress against Glenmore Motors Pty Ltd, the respondent, for alleged unfair termination of his employment. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia’s workplace relations tribunal.

The legal issues that the Commission needed to resolve included whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable and whether there was a valid reason for the termination. The central question was whether Glenmore Motors Pty Ltd had a valid reason for terminating Mr. Diplock’s employment and whether the process followed was procedurally fair. The Commission also had to consider whether Mr. Diplock's dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties and the applicable principles of unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. It assessed the employer's justification for the dismissal and the fairness of the process leading to the termination. After careful consideration, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The employer had a valid reason for the termination, and the process followed was procedurally fair. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission's final order was that the application for relief from unfair dismissal be dismissed, and Mr. Diplock was not entitled to the relief sought.

Blake Diplock v Glenmore Motors Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established