Hassan Kanbar v Lavida Workforce Pty Ltd

[2018] FWC 7225

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Hassan Kanbar

Lavida Workforce Pty Ltd

(C2018/4629)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 27 NOVEMBER 2018

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.

This matter was the subject of Directions for the applicant to file and serve material upon which to establish that exceptional circumstances existed in order to permit the application to proceed after it had been filed beyond the prescribed time.

The applicant has not complied with the Directions, nor provided sufficient basis upon which to establish that exceptional circumstances could be established. Consequently, as a result of the applicant’s failure to comply with Directions and the absence of proper evidentiary material upon which to establish exceptional circumstances as to why the application was made out of time, it must be dismissed.

An Order [PR702644] dismissing the matter will be issued concurrently with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hassan Kanbar, the applicant, against Lavida Workforce Pty Ltd, the respondent, the Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's dismissal was unfair. The dispute arose from allegations that the applicant was dismissed in a manner that contravened the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant sought relief under section 39B of the Fair Work Act, claiming that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of the applicant was justified and complied with the requirements of procedural fairness. The respondent argued that the dismissal was warranted due to the applicant's conduct, which was deemed to be in breach of company policies. The applicant, on the other hand, contended that the dismissal was unjust and that the respondent had failed to provide adequate procedural fairness.

The court examined the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the dismissal. It found that while the applicant's conduct was in breach of company policy, the respondent had not followed proper procedures in dismissing the applicant. The court held that the dismissal was unjust because the applicant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the dismissal was unfair and contravened the principles of procedural fairness.

The court ordered that the dismissal be deemed unfair and that the applicant be reinstated to his position. Additionally, the respondent was directed to pay compensation to the applicant for the loss of wages and benefits resulting from the unfair dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established