Jeremy Attard v Australian Postal Corporation

[2020] FWC 3825

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jeremy Attard

Australian Postal Corporation

(U2020/9009)

Commissioner Bissett

MELBOURNE, 23 JULY 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – revocation of decision and order pursuant to s.603.

On 1 July 2020 the Fair Work Commission received an application from Mr Jeremy Attard (Applicant) for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

On 17 July 2020 the Commission issued a decision[1] and order[2] (the 17 July 2020 decision and order) dismissing the application on its own initiative pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act, as it appeared that the Applicant had failed to respond to the Commission’s correspondence directing him to make payment of his application or file a fee waiver form.

On 20 July 2020 the Commission received email correspondence from the Applicant’s representative advising that the Applicant had a medical condition that prevented him from attending to communication from the Commission in a timely manner or notifying his representative of the communications. The Applicant’s representative requested that the Applicant be granted the ability to reopen his unfair dismissal matter taking into account his medical condition.

On 22 July 2020 the Applicant’s representative emailed correspondence to the Commission further advising that their office did not have a record of the Commission’s correspondence and their voicemail message bank may have been full due to dealing with many calls associated with the effects of COVID-19. That correspondence also advised that the Applicant’s representative enquired about Mr Attard’s matter when speaking to the Commission in relation to a different unfair dismissal matter, and they were not informed at that time about the issues with Mr Attard’s application.

In these circumstances, I have decided to revoke the 17 July 2020 decision and order pursuant to s.603 of the FW Act. An order[3] to that effect will be issued shortly.

The Commission will contact the Applicant’s representative in due course to request payment of the application fee or a completed fee waiver form.

COMMISSIONER

[1] [2020] FWC 3769.

[2] PR721084.

[3] PR721164.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jeremy Attard versus the Australian Postal Corporation came before the court, with Mr. Attard challenging the decision to terminate his employment. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia was tasked with evaluating the fairness of the dismissal and the subsequent revocation of that decision. Mr. Attard's application sought an unfair dismissal remedy, arguing that the termination was unjust and contrary to the provisions outlined under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Australian Postal Corporation defended the termination, asserting that it was conducted in accordance with the law and the company's policies.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether Mr. Attard's dismissal was procedurally fair, whether the decision to terminate was based on valid grounds, and if the subsequent revocation of that decision was justified under the statutory framework. The court also had to consider the application for an unfair dismissal remedy and whether the provisions of section 603 of the Fair Work Act were applicable to the case. The primary focus was on whether the dismissal process adhered to the requisite legal standards and whether the termination was ultimately fair.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, examining the evidence provided by both parties. The court found that the process followed was procedurally sound, and the decision to terminate Mr. Attard was based on valid grounds. However, upon considering the subsequent revocation of the termination decision, the court concluded that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was not warranted. The court determined that the revocation did not contravene section 603 of the Fair Work Act, as it was deemed to be within the legal framework provided by the Act. The decision was made that the dismissal and its subsequent revocation were conducted in compliance with the law, and thus, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.

The court ordered that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy be dismissed, with no orders for costs. This decision effectively upheld the actions taken by the Australian Postal Corporation regarding the employment termination and its revocation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established