Hung Pham v Supreme Caravans Pty Ltd - [2013] FWC 4561

Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2013/5106) was lodged against this decision.

[2013] FWC 4561

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Hung Pham
v
Supreme Caravans Pty Ltd
(U2012/9893)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 10 JULY 2013

Termination of employment - remedy - reinstatement and lost remuneration.

[1] On 7 March 2013 I gave a decision in transcript in which I found that the Applicant’s dismissal from his employment with the Respondent was harsh unjust or unreasonable and advised the parties that I would hold a further hearing to deal with the issue of remedy.

[2] The Respondent appealed that decision. A Full Bench of the Commission refused permission to appeal and dismissed the appeal 1.

[3] The matter was relisted before me for hearing in relation to remedy. Directions were issued to the parties on the 14 May 2013 and the matter was listed for hearing on 30 May 2013.

[4] On 14 May 2013 the Applicant’s union representative filed a submission as to remedy.

On 17 May 2013 Mr Addison of M Addison and Associates filed a Notice of Representative Commencing to Act for the Respondent. In the earlier proceedings before me and before the Full Bench the Respondent had been represented by its General Manager, Mr Josip Markovic.

[5] On 21 May 2013 the Respondent, through Mr Addison filed a submission as to remedy. In that submission the Respondent sought to reopen the case which was the subject of the decision by me on 7 March 2013 and of the Full Bench on 22 May 2013. The Respondent contended as follows:

“3. The Respondent was not represented in either its preparation or the hearing before Commissioner Ryan. It is clear from the transcript that the Respondent vehemently disagreed with significant amounts of the evidence provided by the applicant and the AMWU. So much is clear from the cross examination carried out by the Company’s representative Mr Markovich (sic).

4. It is submitted that the Respondent was unaware that the material filed before the Commission needed to be substantiated and tested in cross-examination to give the evidence its full weight and effect. It is further submitted that had the Respondent been aware of this requirement upon it, it would have called the witnesses from whom statement had been filed, the failure of the Respondent to call such witnesses has been extremely detrimental to its case.

5. It is submitted that prior to the Commission determining remedy the Respondent should be given a further opportunity to call evidence from its witnesses. Particularly, it is submitted that it is important the Commission have a full understanding of the Company policy that prohibits theft and that the allegations of the Applicant that he in the past had received permission to take company property be tested.

6. To that end, the Company requests the permission of the Commission to reopen its case to lead evidence particularly from the supervisors whom it is alleged give permission to the Applicant to…

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 Hung Pham v Supreme Caravans Pty 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: [2013] FWC 4561
Decision Date: 10 JULY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hung Pham v Supreme Caravans Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from the termination of Hung Pham's employment by his employer, Supreme Caravans Pty Ltd. The primary issues were whether the termination was unlawful and, if so, what remedies should be granted to Pham. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) was tasked with determining the validity of the termination and the appropriate remedies to be provided to Pham.

The central legal issue the FWC had to address was whether Supreme Caravans Pty Ltd had valid grounds for terminating Pham's employment. The employer argued that the termination was justified based on performance issues and a breach of company policy. Pham, on the other hand, contended that the termination was unfair and without proper cause, asserting that it constituted an unlawful dismissal. The FWC needed to consider whether the employer's actions were in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the termination complied with the applicable legal standards.

The FWC determined that Supreme Caravans Pty Ltd did not have valid grounds for terminating Pham's employment. The Commission found that the employer's actions did not align with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, and the termination was therefore unlawful. As a remedy, the FWC ordered that Pham be reinstated to his position and be compensated for lost remuneration. The FWC emphasised the importance of fair and just employment practices, holding the employer accountable for its failure to adhere to the legal standards governing termination of employment.

Following the FWC's decision, Supreme Caravans Pty Ltd was directed to reinstate Hung Pham to his former position and compensate him for the lost remuneration during the period of his unlawful dismissal. This ruling underscored the critical role of the FWC in ensuring that employers comply with employment laws and that employees are protected against unjust termination.

Orders