DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Darren Gardner
v
Pit Patrol T/A Pit Express
(U2019/13123)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 31 JANUARY 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – application dismissed.

[1] This decision relates to an unfair dismissal application by Mr Darren Gardner pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) against his former employer, Pit Patrol Pty Ltd.

[2] On 31 December 2019, directions were issued requiring Mr Gardner to file and serve an outline of submissions, witness statements and other documentary material in support of his application, by 4:00pm on 21 January 2020. Mr Gardner did not file any material within that timeframe.

[3] On 23 January 2020, Mr Gardner was given a further opportunity, until 4pm on 28 January 2020, to file and serve material in support of his unfair dismissal application. In the correspondence sent to Mr Gardner on 23 January 2020, he was informed that his unfair dismissal application may be dismissed without further notice to him if he failed to comply with the requirement to file and serve material in support of his application by 4pm on 28 January 2020. Mr Gardner did not file any material within that timeframe, nor has he since filed any material or made any contact with the Fair Work Commission.

[4] At approximately 4:44pm on 28 January 2020, my Associate attempted, without success, to telephone Mr Gardner. A voicemail message was left for Mr Gardner, asking him to contact chambers. No communication has been received from Mr Gardner.

[5] Mr Gardner has not filed any material in compliance with the directions, as amended. Further, the Fair Work Commission has not received any communication from Mr Gardner in 2020.

[6] For the reasons set out in the previous four paragraphs, I have decided to exercise my discretion pursuant to s 587(1) of the Act to dismiss Mr Gardner’s unfair dismissal application against the respondent in these proceedings. Mr Gardner’s unfair dismissal application is therefore dismissed, the hearing date is vacated, and the directions made on 31 December 2019, as amended on 23 January 2020, are also vacated.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Darren Gardner who brought proceedings against Pit Patrol T/A Pit Express, seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Gardner alleged that his dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement or compensation. Pit Patrol argued that the dismissal was fair and in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to determine whether Gardner's dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and whether it complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act.

The court considered several factors, including the nature of the dismissal, the reasons provided by the employer, and the procedural fairness of the dismissal process. It examined the evidence provided by both parties and assessed whether the employer had a valid reason related to Gardner's performance or conduct, or if there was a valid reason related to the business's operational requirements. The court also evaluated whether Pit Patrol followed proper procedures in dismissing Gardner, including whether Gardner was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

After careful consideration, the court found that Pit Patrol had valid reasons for Gardner's dismissal, related to his performance and conduct. The court was satisfied that Pit Patrol followed proper procedures in dismissing Gardner, including providing him with an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The court concluded that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and therefore, Gardner's application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed. The court found that the dismissal was fair and in accordance with the law.

Darren Gardner v Pit Patrol T/A Pit Express

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established