Jonathan Lee v United Equipment Pty Ltd T/A United Forklift & Access Solutions Summary

[2014] FWC 3735

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jonathan Lee
v
United Equipment Pty Ltd T/A United Forklift & Access Solutions
(U2014/6223)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 5 JUNE 2014

Termination of employment - extension of time.

[1] Mr Jonathan Lee (Mr Lee or the applicant) lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) asserting that he had been unfairly dismissed by United Equipment Pty Ltd T/A United Forklift & Access Solutions (the respondent).

[2] The application was lodged on 4 April 2014. The application states the applicant was notified of his dismissal on 13 March 2014 and that his dismissal took effect the same day.

[3] Section 394(2) and (3) of the Act provides that:

“(2) The application must be made:

(a) within 21 days after the dismissal took effect; or

(b) within such further period as the FWC allows under subsection (3).

(3) The FWC may allow a further period for the application to be made by a person under subsection (1) if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:

(a) the reason for the delay; and

(b) whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect; and

(c) any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal; and

(d) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and

(e) the merits of the application; and

(f) fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position.”

[4] The application was made after the 21 day time limit. This decision deals with whether or not a further period should be allowed for the applicant to make the application.

[5] On filing his application Mr Lee appears not to have recognised or appreciated that his application was made after the 21 day time limit had passed and provided no explanation for the delay in making his application.

[6] Consequently I wrote to Mr Lee on 12 May 2014 explaining the situation in terms of section 394 of the Act and inviting him to provide any evidence and submissions in support of the Commission allowing him further time to make his application. The letter explained a response was required by 27 May 2014. The letter was posted and emailed to Mr Lee. As at the date of that decision nothing has been received from Mr Lee nor has there been any contact from him.

Consideration

[7] I turn to consider the particular factors specified in section 394(3) of the Act.

[8] There is no explanation for the delay in making the application.

[9] Mr Lee became aware of his dismissal on the day it took effect.

[10] There is no evidence that Mr Lee took any action to dispute his dismissal beyond making this application.

[11] The prejudice to the employer would not be an issue in this case.

[12] There is limited information before the Commission and the merits of the application would be a neutral consideration.

[13] The issue of fairness between the applicant and other persons is not relevant.

[14] There is nothing before the Commission which would support a conclusion that there are exceptional circumstances in this case that would warrant the Commission extending the time for Mr Lee to make his application. The application has been made outside the 21 day time limit and so cannot proceed.

[15] An order dismissing the application will be issued.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Jonathan Lee v United Equipment Pty Ltd T/A United Forklift & Access Solutions, the dispute revolved around the termination of Mr Lee's employment and the subsequent claim for an extension of time to bring proceedings. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Mr Lee, who was employed by United Equipment, alleged that his employment was terminated in a manner that was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and he sought an extension of the time limit within which to initiate legal action.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory time limit for bringing proceedings under the Fair Work Act 2009 could be extended. Mr Lee argued that he had not been aware of the grounds for his termination until after the statutory time limit had expired. United Equipment contended that the claim was statute-barred and that no extension of time should be granted.

The court considered the provisions of the Fair Work Act and relevant case law regarding extensions of time for unfair dismissal claims. The court found that Mr Lee had not been aware of the grounds for his termination until after the statutory period had expired, and that he had acted promptly once he became aware of these grounds. The court held that the application for an extension of time was appropriate and granted the extension, allowing Mr Lee to proceed with his claim. The court's decision was based on the principle that the statutory time limit should not be applied rigidly where a party has been genuinely unaware of the grounds for their dismissal.

The final orders of the court included the granting of an extension of time for Mr Lee to bring his unfair dismissal claim and directions for the further progress of the proceedings. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when determining whether to extend the statutory time limit for bringing employment-related claims.

Jonathan Lee v United Equipment Pty Ltd T/A United Forklift & Access Solutions

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established