DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Harkirat Singh
v
Crown Melbourne Ltd
(U2019/6507)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT YOUNG

MELBOURNE, 14 APRIL 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 13 June 2019, Mr Harkirat Singh made an application to the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a remedy, alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with Crown Melbourne Ltd (Crown). Mr Singh seeks reinstatement and compensation.

Hearing and Witnesses

[2] Mr Singh’s application was the subject of a hearing before me on 24, 25 and 26 September 2019.

[3] Mr Singh gave evidence on his own behalf and also called Mr Yadav, a personal friend. Ms Williamson appeared for the Respondent.

[4] In accordance with directions issued by the Commission, Mr Singh filed his Outline of Argument, witness statement and supporting material on 13 August 2019. Mr Singh’s witness statement was directed to mostly historical matters and did not include any specific evidence in relation to the events of 2 November 2018. Those matters were dealt with in Mr Singh’s Outline of Argument at questions 4(c) and 4(d). It was agreed at the hearing that the material contained at questions 4(c) and (d) of Mr Singh’s Outline of Argument would be taken as Mr Singh’s evidence in chief in addition to the matters contained in his witness statement.

[5] Mr Singh also relies upon Crown’s CCTV footage of the evening of 2 November 2018 1 (CCTV Footage). With the exception of the footage from the interview room,2 the CCTV Footage does not have audio. Therefore, for the most part, the footage is visual footage only.

[6] The following witnesses gave evidence on behalf of Crown:

• Matthew Healey – Dealer – Table Games

• Blake O’Brien – Dealer – Table Games

• Chris Ash – Area Manager – Table Games

• Gin Wilkinson – Assistant Casino Manger – Table Games

• Meg Leahy – Casino Manger – Table Games

• Adam Ward – Assistant Casino Manger – Table Games

• Matthew Cameron – Dealer – Table Games

• Kevin Pham – Dealer and Union Delegate

• Courtney Butterworth – Human Resources Advisor

• Matthew Christie – General Manager – Table Games Operations

• Luke Overman – Casino Manger – Table Games

• Tony Zappia – Trainer – Gaming

• Jacinta Cubillo – Human Resources Manager – Table Games

Submissions

[7] Mr Singh filed submissions in the Commission on 13 August 2019. Crown filed submissions in the Commission on 9 September 2019.

[8] Final written submissions were filed by Mr Singh on 1 October 2019. Final written submissions were filed by Crown on 21 October 2019.

[9] In addition, on 21 September 2019, at the direction of the Commission the parties filed a Statement of Agreed Facts.

Initial matters

[10] Turning first to the initial matters which must be decided before the merits of the application are considered, it is not in dispute…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Harkirat Singh v Crown Melbourne Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] FWC 1927
Decision Date: 14 APRIL 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harkirat Singh sought unfair dismissal remedies against Crown Melbourne Ltd following his termination from employment. The Federal Court of Australia heard the matter, which involved disputes over the procedural fairness of the dismissal and the substantive fairness of the termination decision. Singh claimed that he was dismissed without just cause or reason and that the process leading to his dismissal was unfair.

The court was required to determine whether the dismissal was procedurally fair, considering whether Singh was given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Additionally, the court had to assess the substantive fairness of the dismissal, evaluating whether the termination decision was reasonable in the circumstances. This involved examining the employer's conduct and the reasons provided for the dismissal.

The court found that the employer had failed to provide Singh with adequate notice and an opportunity to respond, making the dismissal procedurally unfair. Furthermore, the court determined that the termination decision lacked substantive fairness as it was not supported by the employer's conduct or the reasons provided. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Singh, finding that his dismissal was unfair and ordering Crown Melbourne Ltd to reinstate him to his former position or pay him compensation in lieu.

Orders