Che Johanson v Jeld-Wen Pty Ltd T/A Stegbar Summary

[2013] FWC 8888

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Che Johanson
v
Jeld-Wen Pty Ltd T/A Stegbar
(U2013/10842)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 14 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 25 June 2013, Mr Che Johanson made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Mr Johanson’s employment had been terminated by Jeld-Wen Pty Ltd T/A Stegbar (Stegbar) on 17 June 2013.

[2] The matter was the subject of conciliation however, the matter was not resolved. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Johanson was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 30 September 2013.

[4] Mr Johanson did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Roe on 11 October 2013.

[5] On 11 October 2013, Stegbar filed an objection to the application and sought the dismissal of Mr Johanson’s application. Stegbar based their objection on grounds that Mr Johanson failed to attend the conciliation and non compliance hearing.

[6] On 14 October 2013, Mr Johanson was sent correspondence informing him of the Respondent’s s.399A application. Mr Johanson was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Stegbar’s application by close of business, on 28 October 2013. Mr Johanson was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[7] Mr Johanson did not file any material with the Commission.

[8] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

....

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[9] I am satisfied that Stegbar’s email filed on 5 June 2013 is an application to have the matter dismissed for Mr Johanson’s failure to attend the non compliance hearing.

[10] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[11] As Mr Johanson did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[12] After considering all the material, Mr Johanson’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Che Johanson v Jeld-Wen Pty Ltd T/A Stegbar, the applicant, Che Johanson, sought relief from an unfair dismissal by Stegbar. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia’s industrial relations tribunal. The applicant claimed that his dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under section 383 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary dispute was whether the applicant's dismissal was justified due to misconduct, and if not, whether the dismissal constituted an unfair outcome.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the dismissal of the applicant was procedurally fair and whether it was substantively fair given the circumstances of the case. The applicant argued that the process leading to his dismissal was flawed and that the decision to terminate his employment was disproportionate. Stegbar contended that the dismissal was procedurally correct and substantively justified due to the applicant's conduct, which included allegations of bullying and inappropriate behaviour.

The Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and assessed whether the dismissal was within the range of responses open to the employer. It examined the fairness of the process and whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal. The Commission found that the employer had followed a fair process in reaching its decision, and that the reasons for dismissal were valid and supported by the evidence. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, given the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal. The Commission ruled that the employer had acted within its rights to terminate the applicant's employment, and that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair. The decision was based on the evidence of misconduct and the employer's right to manage its business without interference. The Commission did not find any procedural flaws or disproportionate response by the employer.

Che Johanson v Jeld-Wen Pty Ltd T/A Stegbar

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established