Hassan Abdul v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd T/A Inghams (Bolivar)

[2020] FWC 4341

[2020] FWC 4341

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Hassan Abdul
v
Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd T/A Inghams (Bolivar)
(U2020/8435)

COMMISSIONER PLATT ADELAIDE, 18 AUGUST 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy– request for an extension of time – application refused.

Introduction

[1] The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) provides that an applicant for an unfair dismissal remedy made pursuant to s.394 of the Act must make an application within 21 days after the dismissal took effect. 1 However, the Fair Work Commission (Commission) may allow a further period for the application to be made in exceptional circumstances.2

[2] This decision concerns whether I should exercise my discretion to allow Mr Hassan Abdul a further period for his unfair dismissal application (Application) to be made against Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd T/A Inghams Group Ltd (Inghams).

Background

[3] Mr Abdul has lodged an application pursuant to s.394 of the Act in relation to the termination of his employment with Inghams which his form F2 Unfair Dismissal Application advised took effect on 29 May 2020.

[4] The application was lodged on 18 June 2020.

[5] The application did not recognise that it was made beyond 21 days from the date of dismissal.

[6] On 8 July 2020, Inghams lodged a form F3 Employer Response which indicated that the dismissal occurred on 20 May 2020 but did not raise any jurisdictional objection

[7] On 4 August 2020, I issued directions and advised that the extension of time issue would be considered at a telephone conference on 11 August 2020. Information about the extension of time issue and the factors that I am required to take into account in considering this matter, were provided to the parties. Mr Abdul was directed to provide a statement concerning the extension of time and any documents to be relied upon by 7 August 2020. The Directions were also sent to his Union Representative.

[8] Mr Abdul did not lodge any material, nor did Inghams.

Hearing

[9] A hearing was conducted by way of telephone conference on 11 August 2020. A sound file record of the telephone conference was kept. Ms McCarthy from the United Workers Union (UWU) represented Mr Abdul. Mr Ebert represented Inghams.

[10] Mr Abdul gave evidence at the hearing, his position is summarised as follows:

•  He was dismissed at a meeting on 20 May, he was aware of the dismissal at the time and that it took effect immediately.

•  Mr Abdul gave back his site access fob on the day of the dismissal.

•  Sometime after the meeting he spoke to his Union delegate about getting the paperwork about the dismissal including his Separation Certificate.

•  He was not aware of the 21 day time limit.

[1] It was submitted Mr Abdul made a mistake on his F2 when he suggested the dismissal occurred on 29 May 2020.

[2] Ms McCarthy submitted that the combination of factors in this case constituted exceptional circumstances, and that the merits weighted in favour of the application and the delay was short and no prejudice resulted.

[3] Inghams opposed the application and contended that it was clear that Mr Abdul was aware of the dismissal on the date it occurred.

Applicable Law

[4] Section 394(3) of the Act states that the Commission may allow a further period for an applicant to make an unfair dismissal application if the Commission is satisfied that there are “exceptional circumstances”, taking into account the following six criteria:

“(a) the reason for the delay; and

(b) whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect; and

(c) any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal; and

(d) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and

(e) the merits of the application; and

(f) fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position.”

[5] The test of “exceptional circumstances” establishes a “high hurdle” for an applicant. 3

[6] I have considered the provisions of s.394(3) of the Act in the context of the Full Bench decision in Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd⁴ which stated:

“[10] It is convenient to deal first with the meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances” in s.366(2). In Cheval Properties Pty Ltd v Smithers a Full Bench of FWA considered the meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances” in s.394(3) and held:

“[5] The word “exceptional” is relevantly defined in The Macquarie Dictionary as “forming an exception or unusual instance; unusual; extraordinary.” We can apprehend no reason for giving the word a meaning other than its ordinary meaning for the purposes of s.394(3) of the FW Act.”

[11] Given that s.366(2) is in relevantly identical terms to s.394(3), this statement of principle is equally applicable to s.366(2).

[12] The ordinary meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances” was considered by Rares J in Ho v Professional Services Review Committee No 295, a case involving in s.106KA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth). His Honour observed:

“23. I am of opinion that the expression ‘exceptional circumstances’ requires consideration of all the circumstances. In Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372 at 379 Brennan and Dawson JJ considered a statutory provision which entitled either a parole board or a court to specify a shorter non-parole period than that required under another section only if it determined that the circumstances justified that course. They said of the appellant’s circumstances:

‘Although no one of these factors was exceptional, in combination they may reasonably be regarded as amounting to exceptional circumstances.’

24. Brennan and Dawson JJ held that the failure in that case to evaluate the relevant circumstances in combination was a failure to consider matters which were relevant to the exercise of the discretion under the section (167 CLR at 379). Deane J, (with whom Gaudron and McHugh JJ expressed their concurrence on this point, albeit that they were dissenting) explained that the power under consideration allowed departure from the norm only in the exceptional or special case where the circumstances justified it (167 CLR at 383, 397).

25. And, in Baker v The Queen (2004) 223 CLR 513 at 573 [173] Callinan J referred with approval to what Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ had said in R v Kelly (Edward) [2000] QB 198 at 208, namely:

‘We must construe “exceptional” as an ordinary, familiar English adjective, and not as a term of art. It describes a circumstance which is such as to form an exception, which is out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon. To be exceptional a circumstance need not be unique, or unprecedented, or very rare; but it cannot be one that is regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered.’

26. Exceptional circumstances within the meaning of s 106KA(2) can include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together are seen as exceptional. Thus, the sun and moon appear in the sky everyday and there is nothing exceptional about seeing them both simultaneously during day time. But an eclipse, whether lunar or solar, is exceptional, even though it can be predicted, because it is outside the usual course of events.

27. It is not correct to construe ‘exceptional circumstances’ as being only some unexpected occurrence, although frequently it will be. Nor is it correct to construe the plural ‘circumstances’ as if it were only a singular occurrence, even though it can be a one off situation. The ordinary and natural meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in s 106KA(2) includes a combination of factors which, when viewed together, may reasonably be seen as producing a situation which is out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon. And, the section is directed to the circumstances of the actual practitioner, not a hypothetical being, when he or she initiates or renders the services.”

[13] In summary, the expression “exceptional circumstances” has its ordinary meaning and requires consideration of all the circumstances. To be exceptional, circumstances must be out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon but need not be unique, or unprecedented, or very rare. Circumstances will not be exceptional if they are regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered. Exceptional circumstances can include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together are seen as exceptional. It is not correct to construe “exceptional circumstances” as being only some unexpected occurrence, although frequently it will be. Nor is it correct to construe the plural “circumstances” as if it were only a singular occurrence, even though it can be a one off situation. The ordinary and natural meaning of “exceptional circumstances” includes a combination of factors which, when viewed together, may reasonably be seen as producing a situation which is out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon.”

Consideration

[7] The dismissal occurred on 20 May 2020. This application was made 8 days outside the 21 day time limit and therefore, can only be pursued if the time for lodgement is extended.

Paragraph 394(3)(a) - reason for the delay

[8] A dismissal does not take effect unless and until it is communicated to the employee who is being dismissed. 5 A dismissal can be communicated orally.6

[9] The delay required to be considered is the period beyond the prescribed 21 day period for making an application. It does not include the period from the date of the dismissal to the end of the 21 day period. However, the circumstances from the time of the dismissal must be considered when assessing whether there is a credible reason for the delay, or any part of the delay, beyond the 21 day period. 7 In Diotti v Lenswood Cold Stores Co-op Society t/a Lenswood Organic,8the Full Bench explained the correct approach by reference to the following example:

“[31] For example if an applicant is in hospital for the first 20 days of the 21 day period this would be a relevant consideration if the application was filed 2 days out of time as occurred in this matter.”

[10] An acceptable explanation for the entirety of the delay is not required to make a finding of exceptional circumstances. However, in considering and taking into account the reason for the delay in accordance with s.394(3)(a) of the Act, it is relevant to have regard to whether the applicant has provided an acceptable explanation for the entirety or any part of the delay. The correct approach to be taken was explained by the Full Bench in Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd t/as Richmond Oysters: 9

“[38] As we have mentioned, the assessment of whether exceptional circumstances exist requires a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. No one factor (such as the reason for the delay) need be found to be exceptional in order to enliven the discretion to extend time. This is so because even though no one factor may be exceptional, in combination with other factors the circumstances may be such as to be regarded as exceptional.

[39] So much is clear from the structure of s.366(2), each of the matters needs to be taken into account in assessing whether there are exceptional circumstances. The individual matters might not, viewed in isolation, be particularly significant, so it is necessary to consider the matters collectively and to ask whether collectively the matters disclose exceptional circumstances. The absence of any explanation for any part of the delay, will usually weigh against an applicant in such an assessment. Similarly a credible explanation for the entirety of the delay, will usually weigh in the applicant’s favour, though, as we mention later, it is a question of degree and insight. However the ultimate conclusion as to the existence of exceptional circumstances will turn on a consideration of all of the relevant matters and the assignment of appropriate weight to each.

…

[44] As mentioned earlier, the ‘reasons for the delay’ is a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether there are exceptional circumstances. There is no statutory basis for the adoption of a decision rule whereby if the applicant does not provide a credible explanation for the entire period of the delay then the matter in s.366(2)(a) tells against the finding of exceptional circumstances. Common sense would suggest otherwise, it is plainly a question of degree and weight.

[45] What if the period of the delay was 30 days and the applicant had a credible explanation for 29 of those days? It seems to us that such circumstances may weigh in favour of a finding of exceptional circumstances. Of course, as mentioned earlier if there was a credible explanation for the entirety of the delay that would weigh more heavily in favour of such a finding. Conversely, if the applicant failed to provide a credible explanation for any part of the delay that would tend to weigh against a finding of exceptional circumstances.”

[11] From his testimony it is clear that Mr Abdul was aware of the dismissal on the date that it occurred, this is confirmed by the handing back of the device used to access the workplace.

[12] I do not accept the contention that Mr Abdul became uncertain of the date of his dismissal after it occurred. The fact that he handed his access fob in demonstrated he would not continue to work at Inghams.

[13] I accept that Mr Abdul was waiting for a Separation Certificate, this however, was no impediment to the filing of an unfair dismissal application

[14] That Mr Abdul was unaware of the 21 day limit of itself does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.

[15] When I take all of the explanations into account, Mr Abdul has not provided a credible reason for the delay in filing his Application, this factor weighs against the granting an extension of time.

Paragraph 394(3)(b) - whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect

[16] Mr Abdul was aware of the dismissal on the date it occurred

[17] This factor weighs against a finding that there are exceptional circumstances.

Paragraph 394(3)(c) - any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal

[18] Action taken by the employee to contest the dismissal, other than lodging an unfair dismissal application, may favour granting an extension of time. 10

[19] There was no action taken by Mr Abdul to contest the dismissal, in my view his discussion with the Union Official about receiving written confirmation of the dismissal does not constitute action taken to contest the dismissal, this factor is a neutral consideration.

Paragraph 394(3)(d) - prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay)

[20] Prejudice to the employer will weigh against granting an extension of time. 11 However, the “mere absence of prejudice to the employer is an insufficient basis to grant an extension of time”.12

[21] A long delay gives rise “to a general presumption of prejudice”. 13

[22] The employer must produce evidence to demonstrate prejudice. It is then up to the employee to show that the facts do not amount to prejudice. 14

[23] There was no submission that Inghams was prejudiced by the accordingly, prejudice is a neutral consideration.

Paragraph 394(3)(e) - merits of the application

[24] In terms of the merits of the application, there is insufficient evidence before me to make an assessment and, accordingly, I have regarded the merits as a neutral factor.

Paragraph 394(3)(f) - fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position

[25] The Full Bench in Perry v Rio Tinto Shipping Pty Ltd 15 considered this criterion and said:

“[41] Cases of this kind will generally turn on their own facts. However, this consideration is concerned with the importance of the application of consistent principles in cases of this kind, thus ensuring fairness as between the Appellant and other persons in a similar position. This consideration may relate to matters currently before the Commission or matters previously decided by the Commission.”

[26] I am not satisfied that the issue of fairness as between the Applicant and other persons in a similar position is a relevant consideration in this matter. Because it is not a relevant factor it is a neutral consideration in determining whether to grant an extension of time.

Conclusion

[27] Having taken into account each of the factors referred to in s.394(3)(a) to (f) of the Act, I am not persuaded, on balance, that there are exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of my discretion to allow a further period within which an application for an unfair dismissal remedy may be lodged by the Applicant.

[28] An Order¹⁶ reflecting this decision will be issued.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms M McCarthy on behalf of the Applicant.

Mr U Ebert on behalf of the Respondent.

Hearing (Conference) details:

2020.
Adelaide:
August 11.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR721908>

 1   Section 394(2)(a) of the Act. Note that the 21 days for lodgment does not include the date that the dismissal took effect by reason of the operation of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s.36(1) (item 6—where a period of time ‘is expressed to begin after a specified day’ the period ‘does not include that day’)

 2 Section 394(3) of the Act

 3   Lombardo v Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations[2014] FWCFB 2288 at [21]

4 [2011] FWAFB 975

 5   Ayub v NSW Trains [2016] FWCFB 5500 at [35], [41] & [48]-[49]

 6   Plaksa v Rail Corporation NSW [2007] AIRC 333 (unreported, Cartwright SDP, 26 April 2007) at [8]; citing Barolo v

Centra Hotel Melbourne (unreported, AIRC, Whelan C, 10 December 1998) Print Q9605

 7   Shaw v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited T/A ANZ Bank [2015] FWCFB 287 at [12]; Ozsoy v Monstamac Industries Pty Ltd [2014] FWCFB 2149 at [31]; Diotti v Lenswood Cold Stores Co-op Society t/a Lenswood Organic [2016] FWCFB 349 at [29]-[31]

 8   [2016] FWCFB 349

 9   [2018] FWCFB 3288 at [35]-[45]

 10   Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298 at 299-300

 11   Ibid

 12   Ibid

 13   Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 at 556

 14   Jervis v Coffey Engineering Group Pty Limited (unreported, AIRCFB, Marsh SDP, Duncan SDP, Harrison C, 3 February 2003) PR927201 at [16]

 15   [2016] FWCFB 6963

16 PR721909