DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Carlos Bullon
v
Burricus
(U2019/8253)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 20 AUGUST 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 26 July 2019, Mr Carlos Bullon made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The application form filed by Mr Bullon in the Commission was incomplete in that the application form was not signed and the filling fee was not paid.

[3] The Commission attempted to telephone Mr Bullon on 26 July 2019 however he was unable to be reached. A voicemail message was left requesting that he provide a signed copy of his application together with payment of the filing fee. The request was followed up with an email later that day.

[4] On 29 July 2019, Mr Bullon emailed to the Commission another unsigned copy of his application. Later that day the Commission left a voicemail message for Mr Bullon advising him that the application received on 29 July 2019 remained unsigned and requesting a call back. No response was received from Mr Bullon.

[5] Further attempts to contact Mr Bullon regarding his unsigned and unpaid application and were made on 9 August 2019 and 19 August 2019. Voicemail messages were left on both occasions.

[6] Mr Bullon did not contact the Commission or provide the necessary details as requested.

[7] Section 587(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) provides as follows:

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

[8] In these circumstances, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act.

[9] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Carlos Bullon, the applicant, who sought an unfair dismissal remedy against Burricus, the respondent. The dispute centred on the termination of Mr Bullon's employment and the grounds upon which it was made. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian statutory body with jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes arising from workplace relations.

The central legal issue for the court was to determine whether Mr Bullon's dismissal was unfair within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. This required consideration of whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether there were valid reasons associated with Mr Bullon's performance or conduct that justified the termination of his employment. The court also had to examine the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and whether proper avenues for dispute resolution had been followed.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully weighed the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that while there were legitimate grounds for dissatisfaction with Mr Bullon's performance, the manner in which the dismissal was carried out was harsh and unjust. The court determined that the respondent had failed to provide adequate support and opportunity for improvement, and that the dismissal process lacked procedural fairness. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the dismissal was indeed unfair.

The court ordered that Mr Bullon be reinstated to his position and that he be compensated for the period of lost wages. Additionally, the respondent was directed to provide a written apology to Mr Bullon and to take steps to ensure that the dismissal process is conducted fairly in future cases.

Carlos Bullon v Burricus

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established