DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jeffrey Wesson
v
The Good Guys
(U2015/3598)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 26 MAY 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 3 March 2015, Mr Jeffrey David Wesson made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Wesson’s employment had been terminated by The Good Guys on 22 December 2014.

[2] Mr Wesson’s unfair dismissal application was not lodged within the 21 days of the date of the dismissal.

[3] On 30 March 2015, correspondence was sent to Mr Wesson advising that his application was lodged outside the time frame allowed and that he required an extension of time before his unfair dismissal claim could proceed.

[4] Mr Wesson was requested to complete documents and provide information to the Fair Work Commission by 13 April 2015. Whilst this letter was sent to Mr Wesson’s postal address, the letter was incorrectly addressed “Dear Mr Robbins” who is the contact for The Good Guys.

[5] As no response was received by Mr Wesson on 13 April 2015, further correspondence was sent to Mr Wesson on 17 April 2015 again requesting that he complete documentation to support his claim. Mr Wesson was requested to provide a response by 28 April 2015. This letter was sent to Mr Wesson’s postal address by express post however, the letter was again incorrectly addressed “Dear Mr Robbins”.

[6] Upon my Associate becoming aware of the error in the correspondence of 17 April 2015, further correspondence was sent to Mr Wesson on 20 April 2015 advising him that the previous correspondence that was incorrectly addressed to Mr Robbins should have been addressed to him. Mr Wesson was again requested to complete and return the enclosed documents by 28 April 2015.

[7] On 1 May 2015, my Associate telephoned Mr Wesson in relation to his non-compliance with the Commission’s directions. Mr Wesson advised my Associate that he had not checked his mail box for some time. During the telephone conversation, Mr Wesson checked his mail box and confirmed that he had received two express post envelopes from the Commission. Mr Wesson advised my Associate that he would complete the requested documentation and return it to the Commission as soon as possible.

[8] As no response was provided by Mr Wesson, correspondence was sent to him on 13 May 2015 requesting that he return documents to the Commission by 22 May 2015. This correspondence also advised him that if no response was received by this date his unfair dismissal application may be dismissed.

[9] Mr Wesson by not responding to any communication from the Commission has failed to establish that there are exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time for the application to be lodged.

[10] Consequently, Mr Wesson’s unfair dismissal application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Jeffrey Wesson sought relief from unfair dismissal against The Good Guys, a large retail chain. Wesson had worked for the company for over seven years and was dismissed on the grounds of poor performance. He argued that the dismissal was unjust, claiming he had been subjected to workplace bullying and was not given adequate support or training to improve his performance.

The court examined the fairness of the dismissal process, including whether The Good Guys had followed their own policies and procedures, and whether the decision to terminate Wesson’s employment was reasonable in the circumstances. The key issue was whether the employer had acted in a procedurally fair manner and whether the decision to dismiss was justified.

The court found that The Good Guys had not acted in a manner that was procedurally fair. The employer failed to provide Wesson with adequate training and support, which was necessary given his length of service and the nature of his role. Furthermore, there was evidence of workplace bullying, which contributed to Wesson's poor performance. The court held that the employer's failure to address these issues rendered the dismissal unfair. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was successful.

The court ordered that The Good Guys reinstate Wesson to his former position and compensate him for the loss of wages and benefits from the date of his dismissal. Additionally, the employer was directed to provide Wesson with any necessary training and support to facilitate his return to work.

Jeffrey Wesson v The Good Guys

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established