DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Brady Jasper
v
Active Plumbing Pty Ltd
(U2014/14389)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 11 DECEMBER 2014

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mr Brady Jasper (the applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is Active Plumbing Pty Ltd.

[2] The application was the subject of a conference with a Fair Work Commission conciliator however the matter was not resolved and so has been referred for determination.

[3] On 21 November 2014 I wrote to the applicant advising that the matter would be listed for a formal determinative proceeding and explaining the procedure involved. The letter requested that the applicant advise whether he wished to proceed with that hearing or to discontinue the application. The letter was sent by email and post.

[4] No response was received by the date specified.

[5] Further correspondence was sent to the applicant again requesting his response. This was also sent by email and post.

[6] That correspondence explained that lack of a response by 9 December 2014 would be taken as an indication that he did not want to continue with the application and the matter would be dismissed.

[7] As at the date of this decision there has been no response or other contact from the applicant.

The legislation

[8] Section 577 of the Act obliges the Fair Work Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

[9] Further section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Fair Work Commission must take into account the Objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

[10] A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.

[11] The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381 of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.

[12] Section 587 (3) of the Act empowers the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

Decision

[13] In this case the applicant has failed to comply with the directions to explain his intentions.

[14] The respondent employer is entitled to a fair go including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time.

[15] The applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[16] Consequently my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now be dismissed on the initiative of the Fair Work Commission under section 587 (3) of the Act.

[17] An order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Brady Jasper v Active Plumbing Pty Ltd, the respondent, Brady Jasper, sought to challenge the termination of his employment by the appellant, Active Plumbing Pty Ltd. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which is an Australian government agency with jurisdiction over employment and workplace relations matters. The crux of the dispute revolved around the fairness of Jasper's dismissal and whether there were valid grounds under the Fair Work Act 2009 for such termination.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the termination was procedurally fair and whether the employer had just cause to dismiss Jasper. This involved an examination of the evidence presented regarding the reasons for dismissal, the procedures followed, and whether there were mitigating factors or procedural errors that could render the dismissal unfair. The Commission also had to consider whether the employer had acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The Commission found that the employer had not followed proper procedural steps and that the dismissal was not based on valid reasons. It was determined that the employer had failed to provide Jasper with adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Additionally, the Commission found that the reasons provided for the dismissal were not substantiated by the evidence. Consequently, the termination was deemed to be unfair, and the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Jasper to his position and compensate him for the loss of wages and entitlements.

The Fair Work Commission's decision mandated that Active Plumbing Pty Ltd reinstate Jasper to his previous employment role and compensate him for the period of lost wages and other entitlements. The employer was also required to provide a written apology to Jasper for the unfair treatment he had endured. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in employment terminations and highlighted the consequences for employers who fail to do so.

Brady Jasper v Active Plumbing Pty Ltd

DECISION

The legislation

Decision

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established