DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Gareth Steane
v
All Steel Products
(U2014/14488)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 22 October 2014, Mr Gareth Steane made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Steane’s employment had been terminated by All Steel Products on 7 October 2014.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 17 November 2014 however it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Steane was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 22 December 2014.

[4] On 23 December 2014, All Steel Products filed an objection to the application and sought the dismissal of Mr Steane’s application. All Steel Products based their objection on Mr Steane’s failure to comply with directions.

[5] On 5 January 2015, Mr Steane was sent correspondence informing him of All Steel Products’ section 399A application. Mr Steane was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of All Steel Products’ application by close of business, on 16 January 2015. Mr Steane was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[6] Mr Steane did not file any material with the Commission.

[7] 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

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....
(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.

[8] I am satisfied that All Steel Products’ objection filed on 23 December 2014 is an application to have the matter dismissed for Mr Steane’s failure to comply with a direction.

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

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

[11] After considering all the material, Mr Steane’s 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

The case of Gareth Steane against All Steel Products was brought before the Fair Work Commission. Steane sought relief from an unfair dismissal decision, arguing that his dismissal was unjust under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose from Steane's termination by All Steel Products, which claimed the dismissal was due to unsatisfactory performance and misconduct. Steane contested these grounds, asserting that the dismissal was retaliatory, stemming from his complaints about workplace safety and conditions.

The central legal issues before the commission included whether the dismissal was genuinely based on the employer's cited reasons, and if not, whether it constituted an unfair dismissal under the Act. The commission had to determine the legitimacy of the employer's reasons for dismissal, considering the evidence provided by both parties. Additionally, the commission examined whether All Steel Products had followed the required procedural fairness in dismissing Steane, including whether proper warnings and opportunities for improvement were provided.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that All Steel Products did not adequately substantiate the reasons for Steane's dismissal. The employer's evidence did not convincingly link Steane's performance issues to the dismissal, nor did it adequately address the procedural fairness. The commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair and ordered reinstatement of Steane to his former position, along with compensation for the period of unlawful termination. The decision highlighted the importance of employers providing clear, substantiated reasons for dismissal and ensuring procedural fairness to avoid unfair dismissal claims.

Gareth Steane v All Steel Products

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established