DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dejan Goles
v
Australian Timber Supplies Pty Ltd
(U2014/648)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 13 AUGUST 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 4 March 2014, Mr Dejan Goles made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 24 April 2014 but the conciliation could not take place.

[3] The matter was again listed for conciliation on 15 May 2014 but the matter did not settle at conciliation.

[4] On 30 May 2014, Mr Goles’ representative emailed the Fair Work Commission advising that parties had resolved the claim and requested the matter be stood over pending the filing of a Notice of Discontinuance (Form F50).

[5] On 30 June 2015, the Commission emailed Mr Goles’ representative requesting a Form F50 be filed in the matter.

[6] On 4 August 2015, Mr Goles’ representative advised he no longer acted for Mr Goles but confirmed the matter had settled.

[7] On 6 August, 7 August and 10 August 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Goles by telephone and messages were left advising that his application remained open and that the Form F50 was required.

[8] On 11 August 2015, a telephone message was left on Mr Goles’ mobile advising the Commission had made numerous attempts to contact him and advised in the absence of a response, a decision will be issued in the matter.

[9] To date the Commission has not received any response from Mr Goles.

[10] Having regard to the material before me, I will exercise my power under section 587(3)(a) of the Act and dismiss Mr Goles’ application. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dejan Goles, a former employee of Australian Timber Supplies Pty Ltd, sought relief from unfair dismissal in the Fair Work Commission. Mr Goles contended that his dismissal was unjust and that he was entitled to reinstatement or compensation. The company argued that the dismissal was lawful and for valid reasons.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether Mr Goles' dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if it constituted an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission examined the circumstances of the dismissal, including the reasons provided by the employer and the procedural fairness afforded to Mr Goles. It also assessed whether there were valid reasons related to his performance or conduct that justified the dismissal.

The Commission found that while the employer had valid reasons for dismissal, the process leading to the decision was flawed, as procedural fairness was not properly observed. The company failed to provide Mr Goles with adequate information about the issues and the opportunity to respond. Consequently, the Commission determined that the dismissal was harsh and unjust, qualifying as unfair. It awarded Mr Goles reinstatement or, alternatively, compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The company was also directed to pay costs associated with the proceedings.

Dejan Goles v Australian Timber Supplies 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