DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Johaze Rindfleish
v
Hungry Jacks Pty Ltd
(U2019/798)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 3 MAY 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) issued Directions in this matter on 11 March 2019, which, inter alia, required that by 4:00 pm on 1 April 2019, the applicant, Johaze Rindfleish, was to file and serve material upon which her unfair dismissal claim could be prosecuted. The applicant did not provide material in accordance with this Direction.

[2] On 3 April 2019, the Commission sent a letter to the applicant which, inter alia, advised that the applicant’s non-compliance with the Directions of the Commission may result in the dismissal of her application for unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant was provided with 7 days to respond to the Commission in respect to her non-compliance with the Directions of the Commission.

[3] On 9 April 2019, the applicant sent an email to the Commission which provided material that was described as “the evidentiary material that I can provide for this matter.” The applicant’s email of 9 April apologised for the delay in the provision of material, and it incorporated 5 attachments which included images of mobile phone text messages, and an invitation from the respondent employer, (Hungry Jacks Pty Ltd)to attend an orientation session scheduled for 4:00pm on 15 June 2018, at the employer’s retail store located at Glendenning, NSW. The material provided by the applicant did not include any witness statement or an outline of submissions document as required by the Directions of the Commission issued on 11 March 2019.

[4] On any reasonable and objective assessment, the material that was provided by the applicant via the email of 9 April could not represent evidence or other material that would remotely establish sufficient basis upon which the claim for unfair dismissal remedy could be prosecuted. The absence of any witness statement or other elementary assertion document from the applicant renders the application to be without reasonable prospects of success.

[5] The matter was listed for Mention and Directions on 1 May 2019. Despite being properly advised of the proceedings, the applicant failed to attend or have some person appear on her behalf at the Mention and Directions held on 1 May. There has been no subsequent explanation provided for the non-attendance of the applicant or some other person appearing on her behalf, at the various proceedings held by the Commission on 11 March and 1 May 2019.

[6] The respondent employer has made an application under s. 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009, (the Act) to have the Commission dismiss the applicant’s unfair dismissal application.

[7] Therefore, in the circumstances, pursuant to ss. 399A and 587 of the Act, the application is dismissed because; the applicant has unreasonably failed to attend proceedings conducted by the Commission; and, the applicant unreasonably failed to comply with Directions of the Commission; and, the application has no reasonable prospects of success; and, the application has failed for want of prosecution.

[8] An Order [PR707851] dismissing the matter will be issued concurrently with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Rindfleish v Hungry Jacks Pty Ltd, the applicant, Johaze Rindfleish, sought relief for an unfair dismissal from his employment with the respondent, Hungry Jacks Pty Ltd. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving the dispute, which arose from the termination of the applicant’s employment. The primary contention was whether the dismissal was justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Hungry Jacks Pty Ltd had a valid and substantive reason to dismiss the applicant. The applicant argued that his dismissal was unjust and not based on valid grounds. Conversely, the respondent contended that the dismissal was warranted due to the applicant's conduct, which allegedly constituted misconduct severe enough to justify termination. The Commission had to consider whether the respondent's actions were procedurally fair and if the dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct.

The Commission found that the respondent had followed the appropriate procedural steps in dismissing the applicant, including providing a written warning and an opportunity for the applicant to respond to the allegations. However, the Commission concluded that the respondent had failed to establish that the dismissal was for a valid reason or that it was a proportionate response to the alleged misconduct. The Commission emphasised the importance of employers thoroughly investigating and substantiating their claims of misconduct before proceeding with dismissals. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the applicant, finding the dismissal unfair.

The Commission ordered that Hungry Jacks Pty Ltd reinstate the applicant to his former position and compensate him for the period of lost wages from the date of dismissal until the date of the decision. Additionally, the respondent was directed to pay the applicant's legal costs associated with the proceedings. This ruling underscores the necessity for employers to adhere strictly to procedural fairness and to ensure that any decision to terminate employment is justified and proportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Johaze Rindfleish v Hungry Jacks Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established