Irfan Shaik v Field Solutions Group - [2025] FWC 2094

[2025] FWC 2094

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Irfan Shaik
v

Field Solutions Group

(U2025/531)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAKE

BRISBANE, 29 JULY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – summary dismissal – Respondent under external administration – dismissal harsh and unjust – remedy granted – compensation awarded.

On 8 January 2025, Mr Irfan Shaik (the Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) seeking a remedy pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) stating that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with Field Solutions Group (the Respondent). In February 2025, the Respondent entered external administration and receivers were appointed. The company administrators informed the Commission that they would not be taking an active role in the matter.

The matter was listed for an in-person hearing on 8 May 2025. The Applicant was self-represented. There was no appearance for the Respondent.

Section 396 of the Act requires satisfaction of four matters before considering the merits. I am satisfied that the Applicant made his application within the 21-day period required by s.394(2) of the Act, earned less than the high-income threshold, is a person protected from unfair dismissal, that his dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy, and the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code is not applicable as a business with more than 15 employees.

Background

The Applicant commenced work for the Respondent on 12 September 2022 as a Managed Service Support Consultant. The Respondent provided services to Kestrel Coal mine.

On 9 October 2024, the Applicant attended his annual performance review with Mr Jody Barlow, Head of Mining. The Applicant been informed by Mr Barlow that issues had been raised in the past day which would need to be discussed during the meeting. During the meeting, allegations of the Applicant speeding in a company car were raised. The Applicant was stood down on “gardening leave”.

On 9 October 2024, the Applicant was sent a letter from the Respondent detailing the allegations:

Dear Irfan,
Notification of Breach of Contract
Please see below timeline in relation to verbal warnings issued in connection with your use of a company vehicle, as well as your operations while on site at Kestrel Coal, which constitute a breach of your employment contract, as well as the Field Solutions Group Code of Conduct and Company Car Policy.
·October 2024 - a formal complaint was lodged regarding your unsafe driving and speeding, which constitutes a violation of your employee contract, and the code of conduct established by Field Solutions Group, as well as Kestrel’s Policy OPERATE SURFACE VEHICLE TRG-SWS-00526.
·October 2023 to October 2024 - multiple verbal complaints were received concerning your driving at excessive speeds and your failure to adhere to company policy. These complaints were lodged by Kestrel Coal staff, including Tim Closter and Shaun Hay, during open staff meetings and originated from internal Kestrel Coal employees in response to your speeding between Kestrel North and South…

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 Irfan Shaik v Field Solutions Group 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: [2025] FWC 2094
Decision Date: 29 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant, Irfan Shaik, brought an unfair dismissal claim against his former employer, Field Solutions Group (FSG), before the Fair Work Commission. Mr Shaik was dismissed on 24 December 2024, after being placed on gardening leave following an allegation of speeding in a company car. The Applicant sought a remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue for the Commission was whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The Commission had to consider if there was a valid reason for the dismissal, if the Applicant was notified and given an opportunity to respond, and whether the dismissal was a proportionate response to the Applicant's conduct.

The Commission found that the dismissal was harsh and unjust. There was no valid reason to dismiss the Applicant as the allegations of speeding were unsubstantiated. The Commission was unable to find that the Applicant was speeding unlawfully in the company car. The Applicant was notified of the reason for dismissal and provided an opportunity to respond, but the investigation into the allegations was poorly conducted and unsubstantiated. Additionally, the summary dismissal after an extended period of gardening leave was deemed disproportionate. Therefore, the dismissal was unfair under s.387 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Consequently, the Commission ordered FSG to pay the Applicant $22,461.54 gross plus superannuation within 21 days of the issuing of the Order. The amount represents the remuneration the Applicant would have received if not for the unfair dismissal, minus any income earned during the period since the dismissal, and taking into account tax considerations. The Commission noted that given FSG's insolvency, any application for compensation to be paid in instalments would be heard.

Orders