Jason Shingles v Jr & Je Foods Pty Ltd T/A Red Rooster Summary

[2014] FWC 8221

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jason Shingles
v
JR & JE Foods Pty Ltd T/A Red Rooster
(U2014/10760)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 19 NOVEMBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 9 July 2014, Mr Jason Shingles made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Shingles’ employment had been terminated by JR & JE Foods Pty Ltd T/A Red Rooster on 29 June 2014.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 12 August 2014 however it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Shingles was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 3 October 2014.

[4] Mr Shingles did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Bissett on 17 October 2014.

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

[6] On 17 October 2014, Mr Shingles was sent correspondence informing him of Red Rooster’s section 399A application. Mr Shingles was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Red Rooster’s application by close of business, on 27 October 2014. Mr Shingles was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[7] Mr Shingles 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 Shingles 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 Shingles’ 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

Jason Shingles applied for relief from unfair dismissal against Jr & Je Foods Pty Ltd, trading as Red Rooster, before the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, Mr Shingles, alleged that his dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and sought reinstatement and compensation. The matter was heard and determined by Commissioner J.A. Holmes.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether Mr Shingles' dismissal was justified and whether it was conducted in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the employer had a valid reason for dismissing Mr Shingles and whether the process leading up to the dismissal adhered to the requirements of fairness. The applicant argued that the employer failed to follow proper disciplinary procedures and that the reasons provided for his dismissal were not substantiated.

Commissioner Holmes examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The employer provided evidence of Mr Shingles' misconduct, including allegations of theft and insubordination. However, the Commission found that the employer did not follow the appropriate disciplinary process, which included failing to provide adequate warnings and opportunities for the applicant to address the issues raised. Additionally, the Commission concluded that the reasons for dismissal were not sufficiently proven. As a result, the Commission found that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable and granted the application for relief from unfair dismissal.

The final orders included the reinstatement of Mr Shingles to his previous position, along with compensation for the period of lost earnings and an apology from the employer.

Jason Shingles v Jr & Je Foods Pty Ltd T/A Red Rooster

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established