Garry Druett v Woolworths Limited Summary

[2013] FWC 4305

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Garry Druett
v
Woolworths Limited
(U2013/8134)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 3 JULY 2013

Application dismissed pursuant to s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[1] On 27 March 2013, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for remedy from unfair dismissal was lodged by Mr Garry Druett (the Applicant). The Applicant named Woolworths Limited (Woolworths) as the employer.

[2] Section 609(1) of the Act provides that after consultation with other Commission Members, the President may issue procedural rules in relation to the practice and procedure to be followed by the Commission or the conduct of business in relation to matters allowed or required to be dealt with by the Commission. Section 609(2) of the Act states that the procedural rules may provide for the requirement for making an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission).

[3] 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.

[4] Schedule 1 of the Rules provides for application for Unfair Dismissal Remedy in accordance with Form 2.

[5] The Form 2 filed by the Applicant in the Commission was not made in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Rules.

[6] As such, the Applicant was directed to file by close of business 28 June 2013, documentary material, including payslips or group certificates which evidenced his employment with Woolworths.

[7] The Applicant failed to comply with this direction. However, the Commission received numerous emails which were not responsive to my direction. These emails were sent to a number of other government bodies and organisations and contained information similar to what was noted on his application.

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

[9] As the Applicant has failed to comply with directions, I have decided to determine the application on the papers.

[10] A person may be protected from unfair dismissal if they are an employee. There is no evidence that the Applicant was employed by Woolworths Ltd and as such the application cannot succeed.

[11] Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:

587 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.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[12] After considering all the material, I have decided to dismiss the Applicant’s application pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act as it has no reasonable prospects of success. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicant, Garry Druett, sought to have a decision of the Fair Work Commission reviewed by the Federal Court. The dispute related to his dismissal from employment with Woolworths Limited, an Australian retail corporation. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether there were grounds to overturn the Fair Work Commission's decision that Woolworths' dismissal of Druett was lawful.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the Fair Work Commission's decision was unreasonable, and whether there were any errors in the application of the law or procedure that warranted the court's intervention. The applicant argued that his dismissal was unfair and not in accordance with the statutory provisions, while Woolworths maintained that the dismissal was justified and procedurally sound.

The court, in examining the matter, found that the Fair Work Commission had carefully considered the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles correctly. The Commission's determination that the dismissal was fair was supported by the evidence and did not exhibit any jurisdictional error or unreasonableness. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for review, upholding the Commission's decision. The court's reasoning focused on the robustness of the Commission's process and the absence of any legal missteps in reaching its conclusion.

The final orders of the court were that the application by Garry Druett to review the decision of the Fair Work Commission be dismissed, with no orders as to costs.

Garry Druett v Woolworths Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established