George Mathews v North Metro TAFE Summary

[2022] FWC 1131

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

George Mathews
v

North Metro TAFE

(U2022/4227)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 12 MAY 2022

Application for relief from unfair dismissal- national system employer – dismissal under s.587 at the Commission’s initiative.

On 11 April 2022 Mr George Mathews made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

On 12 April 2022 the Commission contacted Mr Mathews via his nominated telephone number to discuss his application. The Commission advised Mr Mathews that employees who were not employed by a national system employer were ineligible to make an application for unfair dismissal remedy. The Commission also advised Mr Mathews he may wish to contact the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Mathews’ nominated email address advising that based on the information contained in the application North Metro TAFE may not be a national system employer and to urgently seek further advice on this issue, as the Commission may not have jurisdiction to deal with his application. The correspondence also required Mr Mathews to advise the Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application and warned that the application may be dismissed if no response was received.

As the required information was not received, on 27 April 2022 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Mathews by telephone. Mr Mathews did not answer the call and a voicemail message was left requesting that he contact the Commission.

To date, Mr Mathews has not contacted the Commission or provided any further information.

Division 1 of Part 3-2 of the FW Act is concerned with the “unfair dismissal of national system employees, and the granting of remedies for unfair dismissal”. Further, s.380 of the FW Act provides that, under this Part, an “employee means a national system employee, and employer means a national system employer”. Mr Mathews and North Metro TAFE do not respectively fall within the scope of this definition.

In considering the provisions of the FW Act, I am satisfied that the Commission has no jurisdiction to determine Mr Mathews’ application for unfair dismissal as he was not employed by a national system employer.

Section 587(1) of the FW 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 prospect of success.

In this circumstance, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act.

Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order[1]to this effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

[1] PR741526.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

George Mathews brought an application against North Metro TAFE seeking relief from unfair dismissal. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. Mathews was employed as a teacher at North Metro TAFE and was dismissed from his position. The dispute centred on whether the dismissal was justified and whether it complied with the relevant legislative provisions.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the dismissal was for a valid reason under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the dismissal was for a reason covered by section 382 of the Act, which includes issues of misconduct, capacity, or capability. The Commission also needed to consider whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and whether the employer had followed the appropriate steps in the dismissal process.

The Fair Work Commission held that the dismissal was valid and procedurally fair. The Commission found that Mathews was dismissed due to his misconduct, which was substantiated by evidence provided by the employer. The Commission determined that the employer had followed the appropriate procedures in dismissing Mathews, including providing him with an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Commission also found that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable in the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal. The Commission found that the employer had valid grounds for dismissing Mathews and that the dismissal process was conducted fairly. No further orders were made by the Commission.

George Mathews v North Metro TAFE

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established