Grant Skinner, Mark Pemberton, Joshua Ross, Ian Raymond Lucas, Kadin Hill, Abigail Bryant, Mareck Preston v Asciano Services Pty Ltd T/A Pacific National Bulk

In the Fair Work Commission, three applicants sought relief from their dismissals, claiming they were unfair, while three other applicants sought the same relief but also sought to have their dismissals characterised as genuine redundancies. The respondents to the applications were Asciano Services Pty Ltd trading as Pacific National Bulk. The applicants were all employees of the respondents who were dismissed from their positions on 24 August 2016. They brought their applications under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the dismissals of the applicants were unfair and, for the three applicants who sought it, whether their dismissals were genuine redundancies. The applicants argued that their dismissals were unfair, claiming that they were not given the opportunity to perform the roles that they had been trained for, and that they were dismissed because of their union membership and activities. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the dismissals were not unfair and were genuine redundancies, due to a genuine shortfall of work. The Commission had to determine whether the dismissals were procedurally and substantively unfair and, if so, whether they were genuine redundancies.

In determining the issues, the Commission found that the dismissals of all six applicants were unfair, as they were not given the opportunity to perform the roles that they had been trained for, and that the respondents had failed to follow proper consultation procedures. The Commission also found that the dismissals of three of the applicants were not genuine redundancies, as the respondents had failed to demonstrate a genuine shortfall of work. The Commission ordered that the dismissals of all six applicants be set aside and that they be reinstated to their former positions, with back pay. Additionally, the Commission ordered that the respondents pay compensation to the three applicants whose dismissals were not genuine redundancies.