DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Christopher Thomas
v
Unison Systems T/A Cleaners
(U2015/4795)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 27 MAY 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 14 April 2015, Mr Christopher Thomas made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] On 17 April 2015, correspondence was sent to Mr Thomas advising that on the basis of the information provided to the Commission, it appeared that Unison Systems T/A Cleaners may not be a national system employer. Mr Thomas was advised to seek legal advice. It was also suggested that he contact the Employment Law Centre of Western Australia for information about lodging an application with the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission. This correspondence also advised Mr Thomas that his application appeared to have been made outside the 21 day time frame and that the Commission must first determine whether to grant him an extension of time.

[3] On 24 April 2015, Unison Systems provided a copy of an extract from the ASIC database. It showed that the Business Name Unison Systems is owned by a partnership between Susan Nettleton and Kevin Nettleton. The Pay slip provided to Mr Thomas is issued by the partnership. The ABN on the payslip is the ABN of the partnership.

[4] On 28 April 2015, Mr Thomas provided an outline of argument regarding an extension of time.

[5] On 29 April 2015, correspondence was sent to Mr Thomas requesting he provide submissions in relation to whether the Unison Systems was a national system employer. Mr Thomas was requested to provide a response by 11 May 2015.

[6] On 13 May 2015, further correspondence was sent to Mr Thomas seeking a response by 20 May 2015.

[7] To date, no response has been received from Mr Thomas.

[8] As there are no disputed facts, I determined the matter on the material before me. As Unison Systems is not a national system employer, Mr Thomas was not protected from unfair dismissal and his application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Christopher Thomas, sought relief from unfair dismissal against his former employer, Unison Systems trading as Cleaners. The dispute arose from the termination of Thomas's employment, which he claimed was unfair. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the dismissal of Thomas was procedurally unfair, given that he had not been provided with a valid reason for his termination. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine whether the dismissal was substantively unfair, considering the circumstances surrounding the termination and whether it was reasonable in the given context.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the terms of the employment contract, the employer's conduct, and the context in which the dismissal occurred. It found that while the employer had not explicitly stated a reason for the dismissal, the circumstances, including Thomas's conduct and the employer's response, did not lead to a conclusion that the dismissal was substantively unfair. The Commission determined that the dismissal was procedurally fair as Thomas had been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

As a result of the Commission's decision, Thomas was not granted relief from his dismissal, and the employer's decision to terminate his employment was upheld.

Christopher Thomas v Unison Systems T/A Cleaners

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established