DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Jayde Paranihi
v
Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd
(C2020/1669)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT YOUNG

MELBOURNE, 25 AUGUST 2020

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application made within time – no extension of time required.

[1] This decision concerns an application by Mr Jayde Paranihi under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for the Commission to deal with a general protections dispute involving dismissal.

[2] Section 366(1) requires that an application under section 365 must be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect or within such further period as the Commission allows under section 366(2).

[3] Mr Paranihi lodged the application on 18 March 2020. Mr Paranihi contends that he was forced to resign because of the conduct of the Respondent.

[4] Without conceding that Mr Paranihi was dismissed, the Respondent contends that if there was a dismissal it took effect on 20 February 2020 and the application was therefore lodged outside the 21 day time period provided under section 366(1). 1 Mr Paranihi contends that his dismissal took effect on 26 February 2020 and the application was therefore lodged within the 21 day time period.2 The Respondent concedes that if it is found that Mr Paranihi’s dismissal took effect on 26 February 2020, the application was lodged in time and no extension of time for the filing of the application would be required.

[5] On 11 June 2020, I issued directions for the parties to file materials. Materials were filed by the parties in accordance with those directions.

[6] On 12 August 2020 I conducted the proceeding by way of hearing by telephone. At the hearing Mr Michael Lourey of Chapmans Lawyers appeared on behalf of Mr Paranihi pursuant to section 596 of the Act. Ms Liza Wilkins, Human Resources Consultant at Trojan HR, gave evidence on behalf of Mr Paranihi. Mr David Garner, Legal Counsel of the Respondent, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent filed witness statements for Mr Daryll Pond, Superintendent Supply Chain Execution, and Ms Kathryn Kallane, Supervisor Supply Chain Operations. Mr Paranihi did not require Mr Pond or Ms Kallane for cross examination.

Relevant facts

[7] Mr Paranihi commenced employment with the Respondent on 6 August 2018 in the role of Operator Supply Chain, pursuant to a written contract of employment dated 24 June 2019 (Contract). The Contract provides that the employment may be terminated by either party giving four weeks’ notice in writing. 3 On 13 September 2019 Mr Paranihi was issued with a first and final written warning and placed on a performance improvement plan. By letter dated 20 February 2020 Mr Paranihi resigned from his employment with the Respondent (Resignation Letter). Mr Paranihi provided the Resignation Letter to Ms Kallane around 7.00 am that day. The Resignation Letter is addressed to Mr Elwin Nepgen and relevantly provides as follows:

“Dear Elwin

Please accept this letter as formal notice of my resignation from my…

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.

Continue reading Jayde Paranihi v Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jayde Paranihi v Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 4485
Case: [2020] FWC 4485
Decision Date: 25 AUGUST 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jayde Paranihi initiated proceedings against Roy Hill Holdings Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission, alleging wrongful termination of employment. Paranihi sought relief for the alleged unfair dismissal and associated contraventions under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on the timing of the application, with Roy Hill Holdings arguing that the application was beyond the statutorily prescribed time limits. The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the application was lodged within the requisite time frame and whether an extension of time should be granted considering the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission found that the application was indeed made within the allowable time, adhering to the statutory provisions regarding the dismissal of employees. The Commission assessed the evidence and determined that the application was filed promptly, within the specified period. Consequently, the Commission held that no extension of time was necessary as the application met the legal requirements set out in the Act. The Commission emphasised that the strict adherence to the time limits for filing such applications is crucial to ensure fairness and efficiency in the proceedings.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Roy Hill Holdings' argument for an extension of time, affirming that the application was within the legal time frame. The Commission’s decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with statutory timelines in employment-related disputes. Given the finding that the application was timely, the Commission proceeded to address the substantive issues of the case. As a result, the Commission directed that the matter would be heard on its merits, focusing on the validity of the dismissal and the associated contraventions.

Orders