[2015] FWC 5781[Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2015/6017) was lodged against this decision.]

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Heath Stephenson
v
Patties Foods Ltd
(U2015/5060)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 20 AUGUST 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] The Applicant filed an unfair dismissal application with the Commission on 21 April 2015 in relation to the termination of his employment on 2 April 2015.

[2] The application was subject to a hearing on 14 and 15 July 2015 at Bairnsdale and a hearing on 20 August 2015 at Melbourne. Permission was granted by the Commission for each of the Applicant and the Respondent to be represented by a solicitor or paid agent. At the hearing the Applicant was represented by Mr G Dircks and the Respondent was represented by Ms A Forsyth of counsel.

[3] Before considering the merits of the application in this matter the Commission is required to be satisfied as to certain preliminary matter set out in s.396. The Respondent has made certain admissions in relation to the matters set out in s.396.

[4] The Commission finds that the application in this matter was made within the time frame set out in s.394(2)(a).

[5] The Commission finds that the Applicant was dismissed within the meaning of s.386.

[6] The Commission finds that the Applicant was protected from unfair dismissal within the meaning of s.382.

[7] The Commission finds that the Respondent was not a small business employer at the time of the dismissal and therefore the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code does not apply.

[8] The Commission finds that dismissal was not a case of a genuine redundancy.

[9] The Commission is satisfied that the dismissal of the Applicant was harsh, unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of s.387.

[10] The Commission finds that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of s.385.

[11] The Commission considers that it is appropriate to grant a remedy to the Applicant in relation to the unfair dismissal.

[12] The Commission considers that the primary remedy of reinstatement should be granted to the Applicant. The Commission will issue an order that the Respondent reinstate the Applicant to the position he was employed in immediately before the dismissal.

[13] The Commission considers that it is appropriate to, and will, make an order to maintain the continuity of the Applicant’s employment.

[14] The Commission considers that it is appropriate to, and will, make an order to cause the employer to pay to the Applicant an amount for the remuneration lost or likely to have been lost by the Applicant because of the dismissal.

[15] The Commission intends to issue written reasons for its decision at a later date.

[16] The orders for reinstatement, maintaining continuity of service and restoration of lost pay will be issued at the same time as the written reasons for decision are issued and each order will be expressed to commence 22 days after the date of issue.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

G. Dircks on behalf of the applicant.

A. Forsyth of counsel on behalf of the respondent.

Hearing details:

2015.

Bairnsdale:

July 14, 15.

Melbourne:

August 20.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Heath Stephenson brought a claim against Patties Foods Ltd, seeking relief from an unfair dismissal. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The crux of the dispute revolved around whether the termination of Mr Stephenson's employment was justified and if the employer had adhered to the requisite procedural fairness in dismissing him. The legal issues before the Commission involved the validity of the dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically examining whether the employer had a valid reason for the dismissal and whether the appropriate procedures were followed.

The Commission meticulously reviewed the employer's evidence and Mr Stephenson's responses to determine if the dismissal met the requirements for a valid reason and procedural fairness. It was crucial to assess whether the employer had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Stephenson was guilty of misconduct and whether the employer followed the correct procedures before dismissing him. The Commission found that Patties Foods Ltd had a valid reason for dismissal based on the evidence presented, but there were procedural shortcomings in how the dismissal was handled. The employer did not provide adequate opportunity for Mr Stephenson to respond to the allegations against him, which was a critical procedural error.

Consequently, the Fair Work Commission ruled that the dismissal was unfair due to the procedural flaws, despite the valid reason for termination. The Commission ordered that Mr Stephenson be reinstated to his former position and compensated for the loss of wages and entitlements from the date of dismissal until his reinstatement. This decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness in employment terminations and the necessity for employers to follow proper procedures to avoid unfair dismissal claims.

Heath Stephenson v Patties Foods Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established