DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Brandon Vella
v
Australian Training Company
(U2020/9074)

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN

SYDNEY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 2 July 2020, Mr Brandon Vella (the Applicant) made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Applicant’s application stated that he commenced employment, as a Trainee, with the Australian Training Company (the Respondent) on 2 December 2019 and that his dismissal took effect on 12 June 2020.

[3] On 4 September 2020, I called the matter on for a Conference. At the Conference, the Respondent submitted that the Commissioner for Vocational Training had determined not to terminate the Applicant’s traineeship and had ordered the Respondent to attempt to find the Applicant a placement with a new host employer.

[4] 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

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), 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) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[5] In the current circumstances, I have decided to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act. The Applicant has been suspended but not dismissed. As such, the Commission has no jurisdiction to hear the matter (section 587 (1)(a)).

[6] I so Order

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brandon Vella commenced proceedings in the Fair Work Commission against Australian Training Company, seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The dispute centred around the termination of Mr Vella's employment by the company, which he alleged was unjust. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal tasked with examining the merits of Mr Vella's claim.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the dismissal of Mr Vella was procedurally or substantively unfair, or both. This required a detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding the termination of Mr Vella's employment, including the reasons provided by the company, the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, and whether the termination was justified based on the evidence presented.

In examining the evidence, the Commission found that the company had not followed the necessary procedures before dismissing Mr Vella, and that the dismissal was not based on valid reasons. The Commission concluded that Mr Vella's dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair. Consequently, the Commission ordered that Mr Vella be reinstated to his former position and awarded him compensation for the period of his dismissal.

The Fair Work Commission's final orders included the reinstatement of Mr Vella to his previous employment with Australian Training Company and the payment of compensation for the period of his dismissal. Additionally, the company was directed to pay Mr Vella's legal costs.

Brandon Vella v Australian Training Company

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established