DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Clint Lange
v
SRG Global Civil Pty Ltd T/A SRG Global
(U2020/12109)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 19 OCTOBER 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 8 September 2020, Clint Lange made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Lange states that he commenced employment with SRG Global Civil Pty Ltd T/A SRG Global (‘SRG Global’) in July 2018 and that his dismissal took effect on 2 September 2020.

[3] On 17 September 2020, SRG Global filed an Employer Response (form F3) objecting to the application on the grounds that Mr Lange had earnt more than the high income threshold.

[4] The matter was referred to me to determine the jurisdictional objection. Correspondence was sent to Mr Lange on 1 October 2020 indicating that, based on information provided by SRG Global in its form F3, it appeared that he may have earnt more than the high income threshold. The correspondence required him to provide a statement within seven days to support his claim of earning less than the high income threshold. No response was received from Mr Lange.

[5] On 9 October 2020, further correspondence was sent to Mr Lange directing him to provide a response by 4:00pm on 14 October 2020. He was advised that in the absence of a reply his application may be dismissed.

[6] To date, Mr Lange has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[7] Section 587 of the Act provides:

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

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[8] The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act, establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[9] In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

[10] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clint Lange brought a claim against SRG Global Civil Pty Ltd, trading as SRG Global, for unfair dismissal. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter, tasked with determining whether the dismissal met the criteria for unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the dismissal of Mr. Lange was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, considering the totality of circumstances. The Commission also had to assess if there were valid reasons related to Mr. Lange’s performance or conduct that justified the dismissal.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, focusing on the nature of the dismissal and the circumstances leading up to it. SRG Global argued that the dismissal was based on performance issues and a lack of trust, while Mr. Lange contended that the dismissal was unjust and that there was no valid reason for it. The Commission considered factors such as the fairness of the process leading to the dismissal, the adequacy of the reasons provided, and whether the company had followed proper procedures. After weighing the evidence, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was indeed harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The decision was influenced by the lack of a clear and fair process, and the perceived absence of substantial evidence supporting the reasons for dismissal.

As a result, the Commission ruled in favour of Mr. Lange, finding that the dismissal was unfair. The Commission ordered SRG Global to pay compensation to Mr. Lange for the unfair dismissal. The final order included the payment of lost wages and other entitlements as per the Fair Work Act.

Clint Lange v SRG Global Civil Pty Ltd T/A SRG Global

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established