Bradley Koots v Heavy Duty Plumbing Pty Ltd

[2018] FWC 1268

[2018] FWC 1268

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Bradley Koots

v

Heavy Duty Plumbing Pty Ltd

(U2017/12656)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER SYDNEY, 2 MARCH 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - dismissal found to be unfair – compensation ordered

1. The applicant, Mr Bradley Koots, has applied under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for a remedy in relation to his dismissal by the respondent, Heavy Duty Plumbing Pty Ltd on 14 November 2017.

1. Despite the directions issued by the Fair Work Commission  and the notice of listing, the respondent has failed to file any material or appear at the hearing held on 2 March 2018. I am satisfied that the respondent was aware of the directions and the notice of listing. No application was made to vary those directions or the hearing date. The application will therefore be determined based solely on the evidence given by the applicant.

1. I gave my decision on transcript at the conclusion of the hearing. This is an edited version of that decision.

1. Based on that evidence (contained in exhibit 1[1] and the answers the applicant gave to me from the witness box):

a)I am satisfied that the applicant was dismissed by the respondent,

b)The dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable,

c)The dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (as the respondent was not a small business), and

d)The dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.

1. I find that the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable, amongst other reasons, because the respondent did not have a valid reason for the applicant’s dismissal. In addition, the applicant was not told of the reason for his dismissal prior to it taking place nor was he given any opportunity to respond. To the extent that the dismissal may have been related to alleged performance failures on the applicant’s part, the applicant received no warnings about any perceived deficiencies.

1. I note that the respondent is not a small business, and the procedure used to give effect to the dismissal was entirely unacceptable.

1. I consider that it would not be appropriate to reinstate the applicant but that I should instead award an amount of compensation.

1. The applicant earned $850 a week while working for the respondent. I am satisfied that he would still be working for the respondent today if he had not been unfairly dismissed. He was out of work from the date of dismissal until 28 January 2018. He now earns the same as he earned when he was employed by the respondent. I understand that he received one week’s pay in lieu of notice from the respondent.

1. Having regard to these facts and the criteria in s.392 of the Act I consider it appropriate that the respondent be ordered to pay an amount of $8500 plus superannuation minus any applicable taxation to the applicant. An order[2] to that effect has been issued concurrently with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

B Koots in person.

Hearing details:

Sydney.
2018.
2 March.

<PR600805>

[1] Applicant’s Statement dated 23 January 2018.

[2] PR600806.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer