Christopher Gray v Rimfire Asia Pacific Pty. Limited, Adam Monaco, Raymond Richards - [2025] FWC 2462

[2025] FWC 2462

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365—General protections (consent arbitration)

Christopher Gray
v

Rimfire Asia Pacific Pty. Limited, Adam Monaco, Raymond Richards

(C2024/7029)

COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER

PERTH, 22 AUGUST 2025

Application to deal with a general protections dismissal by arbitration.

Mr Christopher Gray (Mr Gray or the Applicant) applied under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to deal with a general protections dispute involving a dismissal (general protections dismissal application). The matter was determined through consent arbitration, and I determined that Mr Gray’s employment with Rimfire Asia Pacific Pty. Limited (Rimfire or the Respondent) was terminated for prohibited reasons.

Having found that Rimfire has breached the provisions in Part 3 – 1 of the Act, I turn to consider the orders that may be made.

Relevant law

The Commission’s power to make orders in arbitrating a general protections dispute is dealt with in section 369(2) of the Act, as outlined below:

“(2) The FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration, including by making one or more of the following orders:

(a) an order for reinstatement of the person;

(b) an order for the payment of compensation to the person;

(c) an order for payment of an amount to the person for remuneration lost;

(d) an order to maintain the continuity of the person’s employment;

(e) an order to maintain the period of the person’s continuous service with the employer.”

In Liu v Compuworld Pty Ltd,[1] Vice President Asbury, then Deputy President, outlined the following in regard to assessing compensation under section 369 (2) of the Act:

“The approach to determining compensation

[181] The approach to assessing compensation under s. 369(2) of the Act has been drawn from cases involving s. 545(2)(b) which concerns orders that particular courts may make for contraventions of civil penalty provisions under the Act, including ss. 340 and 351. Section 545(2)(b) provides that the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court may make orders for loss that a person has suffered because of a contravention. In Heraud v Roy Morgan Research Ltd (No 2)[2] Judge Jones summarised cases in relation to compensation under s. 545(2)(b). Notwithstanding that Courts are dealing with damages, the principles are apposite when compensation under s. 369(2) is being determined. The principles which can be distilled from those case are:

· Compensation is for loss suffered because of the contravention and there must be an appropriate causal connection between the contravention and the loss claimed.[3]
· In assessing compensation the court will:
o have regard to what is reasonable in the circumstances and what would have been likely to occur if had the Act not been contravened; and
o consider the detriment to the employee occasioned by the employer’s contravention and the extent to which it is reasonable to compensate the employee for such consequence.[4]

· The approach to calculation of compensation is, so far as a monetary amount can achieve, to place 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.

Continue reading Christopher Gray v Rimfire Asia Pacific Pty. Limited, Adam M...

Details

AGLC: Christopher Gray v Rimfire Asia Pacific Pty. Limited, Adam Monaco, Raymond Richards [2025] FWC 2462
Case: [2025] FWC 2462
Decision Date: 22 AUGUST 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Commissioner Schneider considered the case of Christopher Gray against Rimfire Asia Pacific Pty. Limited, Adam Monaco, and Raymond Richards, involving a general protections dismissal. Mr Gray sought compensation for both economic and non-economic loss under section 369(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The central legal issue was whether Rimfire breached the Act by terminating Mr Gray's employment for prohibited reasons and, if so, the appropriate compensation.

The Commission determined that Rimfire had indeed terminated Mr Gray's employment for reasons prohibited by the Act. Regarding the economic loss, the Commission assessed the duration Mr Gray would have remained employed if not for the dismissal. Given Mr Gray's relatively short tenure of nine months and fifteen days and the absence of performance concerns, the Commission concluded that Mr Gray would have remained employed for an additional twelve months. This resulted in a future economic loss of $75,000, reduced by 50% for contingencies, amounting to $37,500. For non-economic loss, the Commission acknowledged the significant impact of the termination on Mr Gray's well-being and awarded $5,000.

The Commission ordered Rimfire to pay Mr Gray $37,500 for economic loss, $5,000 for non-economic loss, and the requisite superannuation contributions, all to be paid within 21 days of the decision.

Orders