Jacques Roux v Malee Farms Summary

[2014] FWC 6570

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jacques Roux
v
Malee Farms
(U2014/10472)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 19 SEPTEMBER 2014

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mr Jacques Roux (the applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is Malee Farms.

[2] Correspondence was sent to the applicant by email and post on 7 August 2014 notifying the applicant that the respondent had raised a jurisdictional objection to the application, advising of the process that would be followed to determine this and requesting he advise whether he wished to continue with his application. No response was received.

[3] A further letter was emailed and posted to the applicant on 25 August 2014 regarding the failure to respond, advising that a response was required and that a further failure to reply may be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

[4] As at the date of this decision the applicant has not responded nor otherwise contacted the Fair Work Commission.

The legislation

[5] Section 577 of the Act obliges the Fair Work Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

[6] Further section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Fair Work Commission must take into account the Objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

[7] A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.

[8] The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381 of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.

[9] Section 587 (3) of the Act empowers the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

Decision

[10] In this case the applicant has failed to respond to the Fair Work Commission’s enquiries and was on notice that non-compliance would be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

[11] The applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[12] The respondent employer having raised a jurisdictional objection is also entitled to a fair go including having their objection determined within a reasonable time.

[13] Consequently my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now be dismissed on the initiative of the Fair Work Commission under section 587 (3) of the Act.

[14] An order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Jacques Roux, the plaintiff, brought an action against Malee Farms, the defendant, in relation to his termination of employment. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary dispute centred on whether the termination was lawful and if the defendant had adhered to the required procedural steps.

The court needed to determine if Malee Farms followed the necessary procedures under the Fair Work Act when terminating Mr. Roux's employment. This involved examining whether the employer provided appropriate notice or pay in lieu of notice and if the termination was justified on valid grounds. Additionally, the court considered whether the employer had acted in accordance with any relevant enterprise agreement or award.

The Fair Work Commission found that Malee Farms had not followed the correct procedural steps required under the Fair Work Act. The court held that the employer failed to provide Mr. Roux with adequate notice or pay in lieu of notice. Furthermore, the termination was deemed unjustified as the employer did not demonstrate that it had followed the appropriate procedures or had valid grounds for the dismissal. The court concluded that Malee Farms breached the employment contract by not adhering to the mandated procedures.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that Mr. Roux was to be compensated for the procedural breaches and awarded him payment for the notice period that should have been provided. Additionally, the court mandated that Malee Farms adhere to the proper procedures in any future employment terminations.

Jacques Roux v Malee Farms

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established