Domenic Gugliandolo v LTG Goldrock Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 8786

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

FURTHER DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Domenic Gugliandolo
v
LTG Goldrock Pty Ltd
(U2012/16055)

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 8 NOVEMBER 2013

Termination of employment - further decision.

[1] On 9 October 2013 I issued a decision [[2013] FWC 7903] and an Order [PR543086] that the Respondent pay the Applicant $14,714 within 14 days of that date (i.e. by on or by 23 October 2013).

[2] The Order provided leave for the Respondent to apply to vary the time for payment. On 21 October 2013 the Respondent contacted the Fair Work Commission. On 24 October 2013 my Associate advised the Applicant that the Respondent was applying to vary the time for payment. The parties agreed to the matter being determined on the papers.

[3] I have considered all the matters raised by the Respondent and the Applicant in their submissions dated 28 October and 1 November 2013 respectively and the Respondent’s submission in reply of 1 November 2013.

[4] I note the submission of the Respondent that they are experiencing some trading difficulties. I also note the submission of the Applicant concerning the existence of a significant number of related entities and the absence of any conclusive evidence that the viability of the Respondent would be affected by the Order.

[5] I also note that the unsuccessful jurisdictional objection of the Respondent contributed to delays in this matter being determined following the termination of the Applicant in November 2012.

[6] I consider that the proposal for payment in six monthly installments to be excessive in all the circumstances. Such an arrangement would not strike an equitable balance. The Applicant is entitled to the benefit of the Order and it should not be unduly delayed.

[7] In all of the circumstances I consider that the appropriate resolution of this matter consistent with the principle of a fair go all round is to vary the order to require that the payments be made as follows:

[8] A payment of $4904.66 no later than 15 November 2013

[9] A payment of $4904.66 no later than 15 December 2013

[10] A payment of $4904.68 no later than 15 January 2013

[11] The varied Order [PR544305] is issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Domenic Gugliandolo against LTG Goldrock Pty Ltd was heard by the Fair Work Commission, focusing on the termination of Gugliandolo's employment and the subsequent decision to not reinstate him. Gugliandolo claimed that his dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement and compensation. LTG Goldrock argued that the dismissal was justified and that Gugliandolo's reinstatement was not feasible due to changed circumstances. The primary legal issues centred around whether the termination was lawful, whether the company had followed the correct procedures, and if the decision to not reinstate Gugliandolo was reasonable.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties, including the terms of Gugliandolo's employment, the reasons for his termination, and the circumstances surrounding the decision not to reinstate him. It was established that Gugliandolo was dismissed due to serious misconduct, which included dishonesty and breaches of company policy. The company demonstrated that it had followed its internal policies and procedures in reaching the decision to terminate Gugliandolo's employment. The Commission also considered the changed circumstances within the company post-termination, which included new management and altered operational needs. After careful deliberation, the Commission found that the dismissal was justified, and the decision not to reinstate Gugliandolo was reasonable given the changes in the company's circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission upheld the company's decision to terminate Gugliandolo's employment, finding that it was lawful and properly executed. The Commission concluded that the company had acted in accordance with its policies and had a valid reason for the termination. Furthermore, it was determined that the decision not to reinstate Gugliandolo was reasonable due to the changed circumstances within the company. Consequently, the Commission dismissed Gugliandolo's claim for reinstatement and compensation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established