Derrick Sharp v Airlie Marina Kiosk

[2013] FWC 6688

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Derrick Sharp
v
Airlie Marina Kiosk
(U2013/12210)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 10 SEPTEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 5 August 2013, Mr Derrick Sharp made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The application form filed by Mr Sharp in the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) was incomplete in the following respects:

No payment of the lodgement fee was provided;

The application was not signed and dated; and

Questions in the application were incomplete.

[3] On 5 August 2013, Mr Sharp was asked by email to provide further details and payment by 19 August 2013.

[4] On 15 August 2013, Mr Sharp was telephoned regarding the missing information and the payment of the $65.50 filing fee.

[5] Mr Sharp did not contact the Commission or provide the necessary details as requested.

[6] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

58 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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

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

[8] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Derrick Sharp brought an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Airlie Marina Kiosk. The applicant alleged that his dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter and had to determine whether the dismissal was unfair and, if so, what remedy was appropriate.

The central issue before the commission was whether the dismissal of the applicant was justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act. The applicant claimed that he was unfairly dismissed due to his refusal to comply with an order that he believed was unreasonable. The respondent argued that the dismissal was justified because the applicant had breached company policy and acted in a manner that was detrimental to the business.

The commission found that the applicant's dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. It was determined that the applicant had indeed breached company policy and that his actions warranted disciplinary action. The commission concluded that the respondent had followed proper procedures in dismissing the applicant and that the dismissal was not unfair. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

No orders were made as the application was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established