DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Daniel Tegelaar
v
Redicrete Pty Ltd
(U2015/7612)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 11 AUGUST 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 14 May 2015, Mr Daniel Tegelaar made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Tegelaar’s application stipulated that he was notified by Redicrete Pty Ltd of his dismissal on 6 May 2015 and the dismissal took effect on 13 May 2015.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 3 June 2015, however, it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Tegelaar was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 20 July 2015.

[4] Mr Tegelaar did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Bissett on 31 July 2015.

[5] Mr Tegelaar spoke with Commissioner Bissett’s Associate prior to the non compliance hearing. Mr Tegelaar advised the Associate she could call him back after five minutes as he would be pulled over on the road. The Associate attempted to contact Mr Tegelaar on two more occasions without success. Redicrete Pty Ltd made an oral application, pursuant to section 399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Mr Tegelaar had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission. Commissioner Bissett waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted Redicrete Pty Ltd’s oral application.

[6] On 31 July 2015, Mr Tegelaar was sent correspondence informing him of Redicrete Pty Ltd’s section 399A application. Mr Tegelaar was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Redicrete Pty Ltd’s application by close of business, on 7 August 2015. Mr Tegelaar was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[7] Mr Tegelaar 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

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Daniel Tegelaar brought an application for relief from an unfair dismissal against Redicrete Pty Ltd, which was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, Mr. Tegelaar, sought to challenge the dismissal he experienced, arguing that it was unjust and contrary to the principles outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. Redicrete Pty Ltd contested the application, maintaining that the dismissal was procedurally fair and justified under the circumstances.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether Mr. Tegelaar's dismissal was procedurally fair and if it could be characterised as harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The Commission needed to examine the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, including whether Redicrete Pty Ltd provided adequate notice and an opportunity for Mr. Tegelaar to respond to the allegations against him. Additionally, the Commission assessed whether the dismissal was proportionate to the conduct of Mr. Tegelaar, and if it could be considered harsh, unjust, or unreasonable given the context of the employment relationship.

The Commission found that the dismissal process was procedurally fair as Redicrete Pty Ltd provided Mr. Tegelaar with the necessary information and an opportunity to respond to the allegations. However, the Commission determined that the dismissal was unjust and unreasonable. The evidence indicated that while Mr. Tegelaar's conduct warranted some disciplinary action, the decision to terminate his employment was excessive. The Commission concluded that a less severe penalty, such as a formal warning or suspension, would have been more appropriate under the circumstances. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was upheld, and Mr. Tegelaar was awarded compensation for the unjust termination.

Daniel Tegelaar v Redicrete Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established