Dimitri Glastras v Rotric Pty Ltd T/A Rotric Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 1081

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Dimitri Glastras
v
Rotric Pty Ltd T/A Rotric Pty Ltd
(U2013/12764)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 12 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 20 August 2013, Mr Dimtri Glastras made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Glastras’ employment had been terminated by Rotric Pty Ltd T/A Rotric Pty Ltd (Rotric) on 8 August 2013.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 4 October 2013, however it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Glastras was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 2 December 2013.

[4] Mr Glastras did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before me on 6 December 2013.

[5] Mr Glastras appeared at the non compliance hearing by telephone. Mr Glastras requested an extension to file his submissions. A further period of time was granted and Mr Glastras was required to file his material by 7 January 2014.

[6] Mr Glastras did not comply with this direction.

[7] On 7 January 2014, Rotric filed an objection to the application and sought the dismissal of Mr Glastras’ application. Rotric based their objection on grounds that Mr Glastras has failed to comply with directions.

[8] On 8 January 2014, Mr Glastras was sent correspondence informing him of the Respondent’s s.399A application. Mr Glastras was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Rotric’s application by close of business, on 22 January 2014. Mr Glastras was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[9] Mr Glastras did not file any material with the Commission.

[10] 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

....

(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.

[11] I am satisfied that Rotric’s objection filed on 7 January 2014 is an application to have the matter dismissed for Mr Glastras’ failure to comply with directions of the Commission.

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

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

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Dimitri Glastras applied for relief from his dismissal by Rotric Pty Ltd, which was heard by the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred on whether Mr Glastras' dismissal was unjust and if Rotric Pty Ltd had valid reasons for terminating his employment. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with evaluating the fairness of the dismissal and the adequacy of the reasons provided by Rotric Pty Ltd.

The court had to determine whether Rotric Pty Ltd acted fairly in dismissing Mr Glastras and if the reasons given for the dismissal were valid. This involved examining the evidence presented by both parties and assessing whether the dismissal complied with the relevant employment laws. The court also needed to consider if the dismissal was within the range of responses available to the employer under the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission found that Rotric Pty Ltd had acted fairly in dismissing Mr Glastras and that the reasons provided were valid. The employer presented evidence that Mr Glastras had been involved in misconduct, which justified the termination. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was not unfair, and the employer had followed proper procedures. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application for relief from unfair dismissal be dismissed, with no further orders made regarding compensation or reinstatement. The decision emphasised the importance of employers following due process and providing valid reasons for dismissal, while also acknowledging the employer's right to manage its workforce in accordance with the law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established