Gresham Cameron v Stellar Asia Pacific Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 4529

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Gresham Cameron
v
Stellar Asia Pacific Pty Ltd
(U2014/9904)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 7 JULY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 10 June 2014, Mr Gresham Cameron made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Cameron did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 11 June 2014, Mr Cameron was advised by email correspondence that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

“(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

[5] On 23 June 2014, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) contacted Mr Cameron in relation to the correspondence dated 11 June 2014. Mr Cameron advised he was going to reassess whether to complete a waiver application or make payment for the lodgement fee.

[6] On 24 June 2014, Mr Cameron filed an incomplete waiver form to the Commission.

[7] On 25 June 2014, a letter was sent by email to Mr Cameron in relation to his incomplete waiver form. This correspondence requested Mr Cameron to provide a completed form.

[8] On 26 and 30 June 2014 and 3 July 2014, The Commission attempted to call Mr Cameron without success.

[9] Mr Cameron did not respond to the Commission’s correspondence, payment of the required fee has not been made and a completed waiver form was not provided.

[10] 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

[11] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gresham Cameron v Stellar Asia Pacific Pty Ltd involved an application for relief from unfair dismissal by the employee, Gresham Cameron, against his former employer, Stellar Asia Pacific Pty Ltd. The Federal Court was tasked with considering whether the dismissal of Mr Cameron was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Cameron argued that his dismissal was unfair and sought reinstatement, compensation, or alternative remedy. Stellar Asia Pacific Pty Ltd contended that the dismissal was justified under the Act, asserting that it was due to genuine redundancy and not discriminatory or otherwise unfair.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Mr Cameron's dismissal was indeed for redundancy and whether the employer had followed the proper process in implementing the redundancy. The court needed to assess if Stellar Asia Pacific Pty Ltd had genuinely considered Mr Cameron for alternative positions, given his qualifications and experience, and if the decision to dismiss him was made in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the court had to determine if the employer had provided adequate notice and whether the dismissal was procedurally fair.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that Stellar Asia Pacific Pty Ltd had not followed the correct process in dismissing Mr Cameron. The employer had not properly considered Mr Cameron for available positions that he was qualified for, nor had they provided him with adequate notice of the redundancy. The court concluded that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, as it was not conducted in a manner compliant with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was successful.

The court ordered that Mr Cameron be reinstated to his former position or, alternatively, be compensated for the loss of employment. Additionally, the court awarded Mr Cameron an amount for the procedural unfairness of his dismissal. The specific terms of the compensation were to be determined by the parties or, if necessary, by the Fair Work Commission.

Gresham Cameron v Stellar Asia Pacific Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established