Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd v David Weule - [2025] FWC 1835

[2025] FWC 1835

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd
v

David Weule

(C2025/4951)

VICE PRESIDENT GIBIAN

SYDNEY, 27 JUNE 2025

Appeal against decision [2025] FWC 1219 of Deputy President Butler at Brisbane on 7 May 2025 in matter number U2024/11923 – Stay application – Stay sought against order for reinstatement and payment of lost remuneration – Stay granted on conditions.

Introduction

David Weule was employed by Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd until 20 September 2024. Most recently, he was deployed to perform work at the Caval Ridge Mine near Moranbah in Central Queensland. The mine is operated by BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd. Mr Weule was dismissed following his involvement in an altercation with an employee of a labour hire provider who was also working at the mine, Mr Torcello.

On 4 October 2024, Mr Weule applied to the Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The application was heard by Deputy President Butler on 30 and 31 January 2025. The Deputy President handed down her decision on 7 May 2025. The Deputy President concluded that there was no valid reason for Mr Weule’s dismissal and was satisfied that his dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.[1] Central to the findings of the Deputy President was her conclusion that Mr Torcello had attacked Mr Weule and Mr Weule defended himself in a manner that was proportionate and reasonable.[2] The Deputy President was not satisfied that reinstatement was inappropriate and decided to order Mr Weule’s reinstatement.[3] The Deputy President also indicated she considered it was appropriate to make an order to maintain the continuity of Mr Weule’s employment and that she would hear the parties further on Mr Weule’s loss since dismissal.[4] The Deputy President made directions for the parties to the heard as to the form and content of the orders to be made.

On 28 May 2025, Central Queensland Services filed a notice of appeal seeking permission to appeal from, and to appeal, the decision of the Deputy President. The notice of appeal indicated that Central Queensland Services sought a stay of the whole of the decision. At the time the notice of appeal was filed, the Deputy President had not made any orders. The stay application was allocated to me, and directions were issued to facilitate a hearing of the stay application on 25 June 2025 on the expectation that, by that time, the Deputy President would have made orders consequent on the findings she had made.

On 24 June 2025, the Deputy President issues a further decision in relation to the form and content of the orders to be made to resolve the proceedings at first instance.[5] The time taken in resolving the orders to be made is explained by the parties having filed a number of rounds of further submissions and evidence in relation to the form and content of the orders…

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 Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd v David Weule 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: [2025] FWC 1835
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Vice President was an appeal against a decision of Deputy President Butler in which she found that the dismissal of David Weule by Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd was unfair and ordered his reinstatement and payment of lost remuneration. Central Queensland Services sought to stay the orders of the Deputy President pending the determination of its appeal on the basis that it had an arguable case with a reasonable prospect of success in relation to both the question of permission to appeal and the substantive merits of the appeal. The Vice President was satisfied that Central Queensland Services had such a case. The Vice President also found that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of a stay at least if the prejudice occasioned to Mr Weule by granting a stay could be appropriately addressed. The issue was whether a stay should be granted on condition that Central Queensland Services pay Mr Weule his usual wages and other payments from 15 July 2025. The Vice President found that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay being granted unless a condition attached to the stay order to ensure Mr Weule was not disadvantaged financially as a result. The Vice President concluded that it was appropriate for a stay to be granted on the condition that Central Queensland Services pay Mr Weule an amount equal to the wages and other payments to which he would have been entitled had he been reinstated for the period from 15 July 2025 to the date the appeal is determined less any income earned in other employment. An order will issue separately to that effect.

Orders