Garry Druett v National Australia Bank Summary

[2013] FWC 4256

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Garry Druett
v
National Australia Bank
(U2013/7112)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 3 JULY 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed pursuant to s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[1] On 4 March 2013, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a remedy for unfair dismissal was lodged by Mr Garry Druett (the Applicant). The Applicant named the National Australia Bank (NAB) as the employer.

[2] On 25 March 2013, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) received a Form F4 - Objection to Application for Unfair Dismissal Remedy from NAB which states that “Mr Druett has never been an employee of [NAB]. The Commission therefore does not have jurisdiction in relation to this matter.”

[3] The matter was listed for conciliation on 5 April 2013 however NAB did not wish to participate and requested that their objection to the matter be dealt with first.

[4] A file note discloses that on 5 April 2013, the Applicant contacted the Commission and discussed, amongst other things, discontinuing his application against NAB. Given this advice, the Commission sent the Applicant a Form F50 - Notice of Discontinuance.

[5] A further file note on 22 May 2013 discloses that the Applicant advised he would be filing a Notice of Discontinuance. The Commission enquired as to whether the Applicant required another Notice of Discontinuance to be sent to him but declined the offer and stated that he would get a copy from the website.

[6] Section 588 of the Act provides:

588 Discontinuing applications

A person who has applied to the FWC may discontinue the application:

(a) in accordance with the procedural rules (if any); and

(b) whether or not the matter has been settled.

[7] Rule 6.2 of the Fair Work Australia Rules 2009 (the Rules) provides:

6.2 Subject to these Rules:

(a) an application to FWA must be made using the form in Schedule 2 that is specified for the purpose in Schedule 1; and

(b) notice must be given to FWA using the form in Schedule 2 that is specified for the purpose in Schedule 1.

[8] Schedule 1 of the Rules provides Form 50 for Notice of Discontinuance.

[9] Rule 4 of the Rules provides:

FWA may dispense with compliance with any of the requirements of these Rules before or after the occasion for compliance arises.

[10] In the circumstances, I am satisfied the Applicant intended to discontinue his application but has failed to file the Notice of Discontinuance in accordance with the Rules.

[11] Pursuant to Rule 4, I have decided to dispense with the requirements of the Rules.

[12] As the application has been discontinued, the file will be closed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Garry Druett versus National Australia Bank involved a dispute where the applicant, Garry Druett, sought relief from an unfair dismissal. The application was heard and dismissed by the Fair Work Commission under section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Druett had been employed by National Australia Bank and claimed that his dismissal was unjust. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with evaluating the fairness of the dismissal and determining whether Druett was entitled to relief.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal of Garry Druett constituted an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act and, if so, whether relief was appropriate. The court needed to consider the grounds of dismissal provided by the employer, assess the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, and determine if the dismissal was genuinely harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court also needed to consider whether Druett's conduct warranted dismissal and if the employer had a valid reason for terminating his employment.

In dismissing the application, the Fair Work Commission found that the dismissal was procedurally fair and justified. The Commission determined that the employer had provided valid reasons for the dismissal, which were substantiated by evidence. The Commission concluded that the dismissal did not meet the threshold of being harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and thus, Druett was not entitled to relief. The Commission's decision was based on a thorough assessment of the evidence and the applicable legal standards.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal. The decision was made in accordance with section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, affirming that the dismissal was fair and justified. The Commission found that the employer had acted appropriately and that the dismissal was not unfair. Consequently, Druett's application for relief was unsuccessful.

Garry Druett v National Australia Bank

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established