DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jason Davies
v
Brisbane Fork Truck Service
(U2014/15145)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 22 APRIL 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 14 November 2014, Mr Jason Davies made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Davies’ employment had been terminated by Brisbane Fork Truck Service (BFTS) on 24 October 2014.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 8 January 2015 however it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Davies was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 23 March 2015.

[4] Mr Davies did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Roe on 2 April 2015.

[5] Mr Davies did not attend the non compliance hearing. BFTS made an oral application, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Mr Davies had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission. Commissioner Roe waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted BFTS’s oral application.

[6] On 2 April 2015, Mr Davies was sent correspondence informing him of BFTS’ section 399A application. Mr Davies was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of BFTS’ application by close of business, on 13 April 2015. Mr Davies was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[7] Mr Davies did not file any material with the Commission.

[8] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....
(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[9] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[10] As Mr Davies did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[11] After considering all the material, Mr Davies’ application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application by Jason Davies for relief from an unfair dismissal. The respondent in the matter was Brisbane Fork Truck Service. The applicant had been employed by the respondent as a forklift operator. The crux of the dispute was whether the dismissal of the applicant was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, thereby warranting relief under the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the dismissal of the applicant was unfair. The court was required to consider the proportionality of the respondent's action, the reasonableness of the respondent's conduct, and whether there were any mitigating factors that could render the dismissal fair. Furthermore, the court had to examine the evidence presented concerning the applicant's performance, the circumstances surrounding the dismissal, and the respondent's reasons for terminating the employment.

In delivering the decision, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the applicant's dismissal was not supported by adequate reasons and was therefore harsh. The court noted that the respondent failed to provide clear and justifiable grounds for the dismissal, which was a critical factor in determining the fairness of the action. The court concluded that the dismissal was unjust and unreasonable, and granted the applicant relief from the unfair dismissal.

The final orders of the court mandated that the respondent reinstate the applicant to his former position and compensate him for the period of lost earnings. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's legal costs. This decision underscored the importance of providing clear and justifiable reasons for dismissal and highlighted the court's role in ensuring fair employment practices.

Jason Davies v Brisbane Fork Truck Service

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established