John Bell v Meedac Incorporated - [2022] FWC 905

[2022] FWC 905

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

John Bell
v

Meedac Incorporated

(U2021/10033)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT

PERTH, 20 APRIL 2022

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Bell (the Applicant), a former head chef/cook of Meedac Incorporated (the Respondent), made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) on 8 November 2021. His employment had ended on 20 October 2021 after he was dismissed for purported misconduct.

The Respondent owns the Inspirations Motel (motel) in Mullewa – a remote rural community in the North of Western Australia. According to the Respondent, the Applicant had been running the motel since his commencement in May 2018. In April 2021, the General Manager of the Respondent recruited Ms D’Elia Holdsworth, Human Resources Manager, to ensure the venue was working within the context of occupational health and safety legislation and workplace law. Ms Holdsworth was based in the regional town of Geraldton, Western Australia.

According to Ms Holdsworth, the motel was struggling to retain newly appointed employees who were engaged to assist with the workload. Ms Holdsworth stated that the reason cited by the departing employees was ‘not being able to work with Mr Bell’.[1] Ms Holdsworth reported that the General Manager considered that a fresh set of eyes was required to get things on track in the motel.[2]

Over the course of September to November 2021, the relationship between the Applicant and Ms Holdsworth appeared to have deteriorated to the extent that I have found that the Applicant failed to follow the lawful and reasonable instructions provided to him by Ms Holdsworth. The Applicant’s misconduct in this respect constitutes a valid reason for his dismissal. Further, having considered all circumstances, including the broader context in the workplace in which the misconduct occurred,[3] and the personal or private circumstances of the Applicant that bear upon the substantive fairness of the dismissal,[4] I have concluded that he was not unfairly dismissed. My reasons follow.

Background

In or around 24 June 2021, Ms Holdsworth received a call from the Applicant advising her that a new employee, an Indigenous woman, by the name of Michelle had resigned.[5] Ms Holdsworth said she travelled out to Mullewa to discuss with the Applicant, Michelle’s resignation. Ms Holdsworth stated that when she asked the Applicant why Michelle had resigned, he replied with words to the effect of ‘that kind don’t last long’.[6] Ms Holdsworth said that she assumed that the Applicant was referring to the fact that Michelle was an Indigenous woman.[7]

Ms Holdsworth said that on investigating the matter, Michelle informed her that the Applicant had bullied her in the workplace by yelling at her in front of customers and making racial jokes about her.[8]

On 29 June 2021 or thereabouts, Ms Holdsworth met with the Applicant to discuss his behaviour towards Michelle. Ms Holdsworth notes that the General Manager attended the meeting (he is no longer…

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 John Bell v Meedac Incorporated

Details

AGLC: John Bell v Meedac Incorporated [2022] FWC 905
Case: [2022] FWC 905
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Bell, the former head chef/cook of Meedac Incorporated, applied for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The Respondent owns the Inspirations Motel in Mullewa, a remote rural community in the North of Western Australia. The Applicant had been running the motel since his commencement in May 2018. The Applicant was dismissed on 20 October 2021 for purported misconduct. The Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission considered whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and whether the dismissal was unfair. The Deputy President found that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The Applicant’s dismissal was not unfair and the application was dismissed.

In reaching this decision, the Deputy President considered the following issues: firstly, whether there was a valid reason for dismissal relating to the Applicant’s conduct; secondly, whether the Applicant was notified of the reason for dismissal and was given an opportunity to respond; thirdly, whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The Deputy President found that the Applicant’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable because the Applicant failed to follow the lawful and reasonable instructions provided to him by Ms Holdsworth. Further, the Deputy President found that the Applicant was notified of the reason for dismissal and was given an opportunity to respond. The Deputy President found that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable because the Applicant was obliged to comply with the abovementioned directions issued by Ms Holdsworth. The Applicant’s behaviour was patently unacceptable and constituted a valid reason for dismissal.

Orders