DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Bronson Brown
v
Oracle CMS Pty Ltd
(U2019/4776)

COMMISSIONER HUNT

BRISBANE, 8 NOVEMBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – applicant dismissed for refusing to complete alternate duties – applicant alleged not required to complete alternate duties due to verbal agreement reached at start of employment – not unreasonable for respondent to require applicant to complete alternate duties – valid reason for dismissal – unreasonable refusal to allow support person in disciplinary meeting – failure to provide opportunity to respond to certain allegations – dismissal harsh – compensation ordered.

[1] On 28 April 2019 Mr Bronson Brown made an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that his dismissal from Oracle CMS Pty Ltd (Oracle/the respondent) was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[2] Mr Brown commenced employment with Village Roadshow Theme Parks (VRTP) in April 2015. He was subsequently employed by Oracle on 1 September 2018 when VRTP outsourced its call centre needs to Oracle.

[3] Mr Brown was notified of his dismissal on 21 March 2019 with the dismissal taking effect on 11 April 2019. He was dismissed for repeated failures to follow reasonable directions to undertake training to learn new skills required as part of his duties within Oracle’s call centre.

[4] Whether or not the service of Mr Brown at VRTP counts towards his service with Oracle due to relevant transfer of business arrangements is not required to be determined for the purposes of ascertaining whether Mr Brown is a person protected from unfair dismissal pursuant to s.382 of the Act. It is accepted by both parties that Mr Brown has completed the relevant minimum employment period of six months.

[5] The parties participated in a conciliation conference before a Fair Work Commission (the Commission) staff conciliator on 5 June 2019. The matter was unable to be resolved and was subsequently allocated to me for determination. This matter was listed for hearing before me in Brisbane on 12 August 2019.

[6] On 9 August 2019 I held a directions hearing to determine if leave would be granted for the respondent to be legally represented pursuant to s.596 of the Act. After hearing from the parties I decided against granting leave for the respondent to be represented as I was not satisfied that the matter was sufficiently complex pursuant to s.596(2)(a) of the Act.

[7] At the hearing of 12 August 2019 Mr Brown appeared and gave evidence on his own behalf. Mr Kyle McQueen, Operations Manager appeared for Oracle. The following persons gave evidence for Oracle:

• Ms Kali Gayle, Chief Operating Officer;

• Mr Ashaam Burke, Operations Manager;

• Mr Metin Unal, Executive Director;

• Mr Kyle McQueen, Operations Manager;

• Mr Nicholas Kinch, On-site Supervisor.

Submissions and Evidence of Mr Brown

[8] Mr Brown was employed at VRTP where he performed work in the call centre relevant to the various theme parks in operation on the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bronson Brown v Oracle CMS Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] FWC 7705
Decision Date: 8 NOVEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bronson Brown brought an application against Oracle CMS Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant, Mr Brown, was dismissed for refusing to complete alternate duties assigned to him, which he claimed he was not required to do due to a verbal agreement reached at the beginning of his employment. The employer, Oracle CMS, argued that it was not unreasonable to require Mr Brown to complete alternate duties and that his dismissal was based on a valid reason. Additionally, Oracle CMS contended that the applicant had unreasonably refused to allow a support person in his disciplinary meeting and that there was a failure to provide an opportunity to respond to certain allegations. The Commission had to determine whether the dismissal was unfair, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether compensation should be ordered.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether Mr Brown's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable and if compensation should be awarded. The Commission examined the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, including the verbal agreement between the parties, the reasonableness of the employer's requirement for Mr Brown to complete alternate duties, and the procedural fairness of the disciplinary process. The Commission also considered whether the employer provided Mr Brown with a reasonable opportunity to respond to certain allegations and whether the refusal to allow a support person in the disciplinary meeting was unreasonable.

The Commission found that while it was not unreasonable for Oracle CMS to require Mr Brown to complete alternate duties, the dismissal was unfair due to the failure to provide Mr Brown with an opportunity to respond to certain allegations and the unreasonable refusal to allow a support person in the disciplinary meeting. The Commission concluded that these procedural errors contributed to the overall unfairness of the dismissal. Consequently, the Commission ordered compensation for the unfair dismissal. The amount of compensation was determined based on the factors outlined in the Fair Work Act, including the applicant's loss of earnings and prospects of future employment.

Orders