DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dallas Wynne
v
Steelcraft Framing
(U2019/10586)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 12 NOVEMBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] Dallas Wynne states he was employed by Steelcraft Framing from 21 January 2019 until his dismissal took effect on 20 September 2019. He applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) that same day.

[2] On 25 September 2019, Steelcraft Framing Pty Ltd (the Respondent) filed an Employer’s Response (Form F3), objecting to Mr Wynne’s application on the basis that he had not completed the minimum employment period to be eligible for an unfair dismissal remedy. The Respondent said that Mr Wynne only worked for it from 22 January 2019 to 17 September 2019. The Respondent also said it was a small business employer.

[3] The matter was referred to me to determine the jurisdictional objection. My chambers sent correspondence to Mr Wynne on 28 October 2019, requiring him to provide a statement to support his claim that he had completed the minimum employment period. He was asked to provide this information by 4:00 pm on 4 November 2019. However, we received no response from Mr Wynne by that time.

[4] On 5 November 2019, my chambers sent further correspondence to Mr Wynne, directing him to provide a response by 4:00 pm on 8 November 2019. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

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

[6] 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

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[7] The words, “[w]ithout 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).

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

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

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Dallas Wynne versus Steelcraft Framing, the applicant, Wynne, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal. Wynne was an employee of Steelcraft Framing, and the dispute centred around the validity and fairness of his termination by the respondent. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission, an Australian tribunal with jurisdiction over employment disputes.

The legal issues before the court were whether Wynne's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether the respondent had valid grounds for terminating Wynne's employment. The applicant argued that his dismissal was unfair, while the respondent contended that it was based on valid reasons related to Wynne's performance and conduct.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It determined that Wynne's dismissal was unfair, as the respondent had failed to provide adequate reasons and opportunities for Wynne to address the alleged performance issues. The Commission found that the respondent did not follow its own policies and procedures in dismissing Wynne, which contributed to the unfairness of the decision. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Wynne and ordered that his dismissal be deemed unfair. Additionally, the Commission ordered Steelcraft Framing to reinstate Wynne to his previous position or, in the alternative, to pay him compensation.

Dallas Wynne v Steelcraft Framing

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established