DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Danny Morgan-French and Huata
v
Van Dairys Ltd
(U2021/4206)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 4 JUNE 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy. – incomplete application – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

[1] On 14 May 2021 Mr Danny Morgan-French and Ms Susan Huata made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The application form filed by Mr Morgan-French and Ms Huata was incomplete in that they did not provide the commencement date of employment, there were two Applicant names listed on the one application and a discrepancy was present in the Respondent’s legal name.

[3] On 18 May 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Ms Huata initially on her nominated telephone number to request the missing details. However, Ms Huata instantly disconnected the call. The Commission then attempted to contact Mr Morgan-French on his nominated telephone number. However, Mr Morgan-French did not answer the call. A voicemail message was left requesting they contact the Commission as there were multiple issues with the lodged application. The voicemail also advised they did not provide the commencement date of employment; as there were two Applicant names listed on the one application separate applications would need to be lodged and a discrepancy was present in the Respondent’s legal name.

[4] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Morgan-French and Ms Huata’s nominated email address requesting that they provide further details as the application was incomplete and multiple issues were identified. The correspondence also advised that if the required information was not provided within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to both Mr Morgan-French and Ms Huata’s nominated telephone numbers, requesting they contact the Commission.

[5] As the required information was not received, on 31 May 2021, the Commission attempted to contact both Mr Morgan-French and Ms Huata on their nominated telephone numbers. However, the calls were unanswered and detailed voicemail messages were left requesting they contact the Commission as there are several issues unresolved with their application – that was the employment commencement date, two Applicant names listed on the one application and clarification surrounding the Respondent name.

[6] To date, no response has been received and neither Mr Morgan-French nor Ms Huata have provided the necessary details as requested.

[7] Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides as follows:

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

[8] In these circumstances, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act.

[9] As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order 1 to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR730445.

In the Fair Work Commission, Danny Morgan-French and Huata applied for an unfair dismissal remedy against Van Dairys Ltd. The applicants alleged that their dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement and compensation. Van Dairys Ltd argued that the dismissal was fair and lawful. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was justified under the Fair Work Act and whether the applicants' dismissal was unfair.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the applicants' dismissal was justified under section 587 of the Fair Work Act. The applicants contended that their dismissal was not for a valid reason and that the process leading to the dismissal was flawed. Van Dairys Ltd maintained that the dismissal was justified due to the applicants' misconduct, which included a lack of cooperation and failure to follow company policies. The Commission needed to assess the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the dismissal complied with the requirements of the Act.

The Commission found that the dismissal was initiated at the Commission's initiative, and the application was incomplete as it did not include the necessary evidence to support the claim of unfair dismissal. The applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the dismissal was not justified. The Commission concluded that the applicants' dismissal was fair and in accordance with the law. The Commission's reasoning was based on the lack of evidence to support the claim of unfair dismissal and the company's justification for the dismissal due to the applicants' misconduct.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The applicants were not reinstated, and no compensation was awarded. The decision emphasised the importance of providing complete and sufficient evidence to support claims of unfair dismissal. The Commission's decision underscored the need for employers to follow lawful procedures when dismissing employees, while also highlighting the responsibility of employees to provide adequate evidence to substantiate their claims.

Danny Morgan-French and Huata v Van Dairys Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established