DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Geoffrey Reardon
v
Integrity
(U2017/390)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BULL

PERTH, 7 FEBRUARY 2017

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 12 January 2017, Mr Geoffrey Reardon made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The application form filed by Mr Reardon in the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) was incomplete in the following respects:

● The respondent employer was not able to be identified as the name provided for the respondent was incomplete and there was no contact address, telephone number or email provided;
● The date the applicant commenced working for the respondent was not provided;
● The application was made without payment of the filing fee and no fee waiver application was lodged.

[3] On 12 January 2017, in a letter emailed from the Commission to Mr Reardon’s supplied email address, Mr Reardon was asked to provide further details by 26 January 2017 to complete his application. A further letter from the Commission was emailed to Mr Reardon on 24 January 2017, again requesting he provide the information requested to complete his application and provide payment of the filing fee.

[4] Attempts to call Mr Reardon via telephone were unsuccessful as the telephone number provided by Mr Reardon as his contact number was the wrong number.

[5] Mr Reardon did not contact the Commission nor provide the necessary details as requested in letters sent by the Commission on 12 January and 24 January 2017.

[6] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

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.

[7] In these circumstances, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the Act.

[8] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An order reflecting this is issued concurrently with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Geoffrey Reardon, an employee, who filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy against his employer, Integrity. The dispute arose when Reardon was dismissed from his position, and he contested the fairness of the dismissal. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Reardon's dismissal was procedurally unfair and whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court had to examine the employer's reasons for dismissal and assess if the procedural requirements were properly followed. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the dismissal was justified under the circumstances and whether a lesser penalty would have sufficed.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the employer's justification for the dismissal. It found that the employer did not follow the appropriate procedural steps and that the dismissal was not justified based on the circumstances. Consequently, the court concluded that Reardon's dismissal was unfair. The court ordered that Reardon be reinstated to his position and that he be compensated for the loss of wages from the date of dismissal until his reinstatement. Furthermore, the court directed that Integrity pay Reardon's costs associated with the proceedings.

Geoffrey Reardon v Integrity

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established