DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Iefata Leuma Mano
v
Nichols Poultry Pty Ltd
(C2019/1846)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

CANBERRA, 3 MAY 2019

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.

[1] Mr Iefata Leuma Mano (the Applicant) made an application which was received by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 20 March 2019 under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that he had been dismissed by Nichols Poultry Pty Ltd (the Respondent) in contravention of the general protections provisions in the Act. Mr Mano’s application was incomplete in that no payment or application for waiver of the lodgement fee was completed.

[2] On 22 March 2019, the Commission contacted the Applicant to advise him that the lodgement fee remained unpaid. The Applicant did not answer the call and a voicemail was left requesting that he contact the Commission to either pay the filing fee or submit a fee waiver form. The Commission subsequently emailed a letter to the Applicant and the Applicant’s representative with a copy of the waiver form.

[3] On 27 March 2019, the Commission telephoned the Applicant who advised he would fill out the waiver application and return it to the Commission.

[4] On 10 April 2019, the Commission telephoned the Applicant and a voicemail message was left asking the Applicant to contact the Commission.

[5] On 17 and 24 April 2019, the Commission telephoned the Applicant. A message was left at his home on both occasions asking the Applicant to contact the Commission.

[6] Also on 17 April 2019, the Commission forwarded email correspondence to the Applicant which foreshadowed that his application may be dismissed unless he completed either the waiver form or paid the lodgement fee. Despite these repeated attempts to contact Mr Mano, the Commission has received no completed waiver form or lodgement fee payment.

[7] No correspondence has been received from the Applicant or the Applicant’s representative since 24 April 2019.

[8] Section 587 of the Act provides:

“587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(2) Despite paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[9] In relation to an application made pursuant to s.365 of the Act, s.367 provides:

“367 Application fees

(1) The application must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under section 365; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

[10] Mr Mano has failed to comply with s.367(1) of the Act. Accordingly, his application has not been made in accordance with the Act and is therefore dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An order to that effect will be issued with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the Federal Circuit Court, the applicant, Iefata Leuma Mano, sought orders to address contraventions associated with his dismissal by Nichols Poultry Pty Ltd, the respondent. The applicant alleged that his dismissal was unfair and related to his membership in a protected industrial organisation, in contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009. The case focused on whether the dismissal was procedurally unfair due to the employer's failure to provide adequate information and opportunity to respond to the allegations leading to dismissal.

The primary legal issues involved whether the applicant's dismissal was procedurally unfair, and whether it was related to his membership in a protected industrial organisation. The court examined the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, considering if the applicant was given sufficient information and opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Additionally, the court had to determine if the dismissal was genuinely related to the applicant's involvement in a protected industrial activity, which would constitute an unfair dismissal.

The Federal Circuit Court found that the dismissal was procedurally unfair as the employer failed to provide the applicant with adequate information and opportunity to respond to the allegations. The court held that the employer's actions did not meet the standards of procedural fairness required by the Fair Work Act. Furthermore, the court determined that the dismissal was indeed related to the applicant's membership in a protected industrial organisation, thereby constituting an unfair dismissal. The court's reasoning was grounded in the specific provisions of the Act and relevant case law concerning procedural fairness and the nature of protected industrial activities.

As a result of the court's findings, the orders included the reinstatement of the applicant to his former position with back pay and compensation for the unfair dismissal. The court mandated that the respondent must also take steps to rectify the procedural deficiencies in its dismissal process to prevent future contraventions. This comprehensive approach ensured that the applicant's rights under the Fair Work Act were upheld and that the employer was directed to comply with fair dismissal practices.

Iefata Leuma Mano v Nichols Poultry Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established