DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Brock Charles
v
Team Moto
(U2013/10655)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 10 AUGUST 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 14 June 2013, Mr Brock Charles made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 23 July 2013 but the matter did not settle at conciliation.

[3] On 9 October 2013, Mr Charles verbally advised the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) that he no longer wanted to continue with his application. The Commission advised Mr Charles of the formalities of discontinuing an application and asked Mr Charles to complete a Form F50 - Notice of Discontinuance (Form F50). A copy of a Form F50 was forwarded to Mr Charles by express post on 9 October 2013.

[4] On 26 June 2014, the Commission sent Mr Charles email correspondence advising that his application remained open and that the Form F50 was required.

[5] On 4 August 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Charles by telephone but his phone was disconnected.

[6] To date the Commission has not received a completed Form F50.

[7] Having regard to the material before me, I am satisfied that given Mr Charles’ advice, that he no longer wanted to prosecute his application, he intended to discontinue his application but has not filed a Form F50.

[8] Section 588 of the Act provides:

588 Discontinuing applications

A person who has applied to the FWC may discontinue the application:

(a) in accordance with the procedural rules (if any); and

(b) whether or not the matter has been settled.

[9] I have decided to waive compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 (the Rules).

[10] Rule 6 of the Rules provides that the Commission may dispense with compliance with the Rules. I have decided to waive compliance with the requirement that Mr Charles file and serve a Form F50 as I am satisfied that Mr Charles has discontinued his application.

[11] The application is therefore, discontinued.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brock Charles filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Team Moto. Charles was a professional motorcycle racer employed by Team Moto. The dispute arose following Charles' termination from his position as a team rider, which he contended was unjust and discriminatory. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over employment disputes in Australia.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Charles' dismissal was indeed unfair, particularly considering the claims of discrimination. Charles argued that his termination was based on his age, which contravenes the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Team Moto, on the other hand, maintained that Charles was dismissed due to performance issues, unrelated to his age. The Commission had to assess the validity of Charles' claims and determine whether Team Moto's reasons for dismissal were genuine and lawful.

In its decision, the Commission found that Team Moto's actions did not meet the criteria for a lawful termination. The Commission held that Charles had been treated unfairly, given the evidence pointing to age-based discrimination. Furthermore, the Commission noted that Team Moto failed to provide adequate justification for the termination, particularly in light of Charles' contributions to the team's success. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Charles, finding that his dismissal was unfair and discriminatory. The Fair Work Commission ordered Team Moto to reinstate Charles to his former position and compensate him for lost earnings and damages resulting from the unfair dismissal.

Brock Charles v Team Moto

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established