DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Boris Petrovski
v
The Gardens Greyhound Racing Club Limited
(U2015/8686)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 14 OCTOBER 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 22 June 2015, Mr Boris Petrovski made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Petrovski’s employment had been terminated by The Gardens Greyhound Racing Club Limited on 4 June 2015.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 21 August 2015 however it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Petrovski was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 21 September 2015.

[4] Mr Petrovski did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Johns on 1 October 2015.

[5] On 30 September 2015 a Commission staff member spoke with Mr Petrovski and explained the purpose of the non compliance hearing which would take place the following day.

[6] Mr Petrovski did not attend the non compliance hearing. The Gardens Greyhound Racing Club Limited made an oral application, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Mr Petrovski had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission. Commissioner Johns waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted The Gardens Greyhound Racing Club Limited’s oral application.

[7] On 1 October 2015, Mr Petrovski was sent correspondence informing him of The Gardens Greyhound Racing Club Limited’s section 399A application. Mr Petrovski was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of The Gardens Greyhound Racing Club Limited’s application by close of business, on 8 October 2015. Mr Petrovski was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[8] Mr Petrovski did not file any material with the Commission.

[9] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....
(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[10] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[11] As Mr Petrovski did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[12] After considering all the material, Mr Petrovski’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicant, Boris Petrovski, sought relief from an unfair dismissal by The Gardens Greyhound Racing Club Limited. Petrovski, a former employee of the club, alleged that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to the principles of fairness. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, where the Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was unfair and, if so, what remedies were appropriate. The legal issues before the Commission included whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether there were grounds for the applicant's reinstatement or compensation.

The Commission examined the circumstances surrounding Petrovski's dismissal, considering the reasons provided by the employer, the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, and the overall conduct of the employer. Petrovski argued that the dismissal process lacked transparency and that the reasons provided were insufficient to justify the termination of his employment. The employer, on the other hand, maintained that the dismissal was necessary due to Petrovski's misconduct and that the process was conducted in accordance with the club's policies. The Commission assessed the credibility of both parties' submissions and the applicable legal standards for unfair dismissal.

After evaluating the evidence and submissions, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair. The Commission found that the employer did not adequately explain the reasons for the dismissal and that the process was not conducted in a manner that was fair and just. Consequently, the Commission ordered the reinstatement of Petrovski to his previous position, along with compensation for the period of unlawful termination. The club was also directed to take steps to rectify the procedural deficiencies in its dismissal processes.

Boris Petrovski v The Gardens Greyhound Racing Club Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established