Brad Sanders v Marshalls Transport

[2013] FWC 6071

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Brad Sanders
v
Marshalls Transport
(U2013/9659)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 23 AUGUST 2013

Application for unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 17 May 2013, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a remedy for unfair dismissal was lodged by Mr Brad Sanders (the Applicant).

[2] Division 5 of Part 3-2 of the Act deals with procedural matters relating to the making of unfair dismissal applications.

[3] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

[4] Regulation 3.07 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (the Regulations) deals with the calculation, waiver and refund of application fees. Relevantly, Regulation 3.07(7) provides for the waiver of fees if the Commission is satisfied a person will suffer serious hardship.

[5] The Application was not accompanied by the required fee worked out in accordance with the Regulations.

[6] On 23 May 2013 the Applicant was advised by telephone, and subsequent correspondence dated 29 July 2013, that their application required payment of the ($65.50) filing fee or a completed waiver form if they wished to proceed with their application. To date no response has been received from the Applicant.

[7] Section 587 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

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[8] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the Application has not been accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Regulations and as such the Application was not made in accordance with the Act. The Application shall be dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Brad Sanders commenced proceedings against his former employer, Marshalls Transport, seeking relief for an alleged unfair dismissal. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary dispute centred around the validity of the termination of Sanders' employment, with Sanders asserting that the dismissal was unjust and without proper cause.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and whether there was a valid reason for the termination. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether Marshalls Transport followed appropriate procedures in dismissing Sanders and if the reason provided for the dismissal was substantiated.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered the applicable provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. It found that while the employer had followed procedural requirements, the reason for termination lacked substantiation. The employer's case for dismissal was based on allegations of misconduct, which the Commission found were not adequately supported by evidence. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair.

As a result of this finding, the Commission ordered that Sanders be reinstated to his former position and awarded him compensation for the period of unlawful termination. The decision underscores the importance of substantiating reasons for dismissal and the necessity for employers to adhere to procedural fairness when terminating employment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established