DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Jonathan Mitchell
v
Santos Ltd T/A Santos
(U2020/16318)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT

PERTH, 29 APRIL 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Mr Jonathon Mitchell for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)(the Act). Mr Mitchell was employed by Santos WA Energy Ltd (the Respondent/Santos) as a Service Desk Analyst from November 2018 until his position was made redundant on 9 November 2020. While a redeployment period of two weeks followed the announcement of the redundancy, Mr Mitchell was not redeployed, and his employment subsequently ended on 3 December 2020.

[2] Mr Mitchell contends that his position was not genuinely redundant, that the Respondent had selected him for redundancy based on his performance which he had not been warned about during his employment, and he was not consulted about the initial attempt to redeploy him into an alternative position. The Respondent contends that Mr Mitchell’s dismissal was a genuine redundancy for the purpose of s 389 of the Act, and that his application must therefore be dismissed. Alternatively, it says that Mr Mitchell’s dismissal was not unfair.

[3] The question of whether Mr Mitchell’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy is one of the four matters the Commission is obliged to decide before considering the merits of an application. 1 The first is whether Mr Mitchell’s application was made within the 21-day period required by s 394(2) of the Act; this is not in contention. The second, that Mr Mitchell was a person protected from unfair dismissal as he earned less than the high-income threshold and had undertaken the minimum period of employment (see s 382 of the Act). These factors are uncontentious. The third is whether the Respondent was a small business employer; it was not, and therefore no question of compliance with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code arises. And finally, whether the dismissal was a ‘genuine redundancy,’.

[4] For the reasons that follow, I am of the view that Mr Mitchell’s dismissal was by way of genuine redundancy and therefore his application must be dismissed.

Background

[5] Mr Mitchell commenced working for Quadrant Energy Limited (Quadrant) on 1 November 2016 in the role of Service Desk Analyst, which sits within the Information Systems (IS) business unit within the CFO Division. 2 Quadrant had been acquired by Santos in or around November 2018.3

[6] Mr Mitchell’s role was to support and resolve IT customer support requests from the business and assist with delivering a knowledge centred support methodology. 4

[7] On 14 October 2019, the Respondent announced the acquisition of ConocoPhillips’ (Conoco) operating assets in northern Australia and Timor-Leste known as ABU-West (COP). Ms Rudloff, Senior People Business Partner, gave evidence that following the acquisition announcement, employees were advised that nothing would change until after the transaction…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jonathan Mitchell v Santos Ltd T/A Santos and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] FWC 2157
Decision Date: 29 APRIL 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jonathan Mitchell commenced proceedings against Santos Ltd T/A Santos, seeking an unfair dismissal remedy. Mitchell alleged that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to the principles enshrined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the court was tasked with examining the validity of the dismissal and the adherence to procedural fairness. The court had to determine whether Santos Ltd complied with the necessary legal standards in dismissing Mitchell, considering both the substantive and procedural fairness aspects of the dismissal.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing whether Mitchell's dismissal was justified under the Fair Work Act, specifically whether Santos Ltd had a valid reason for the dismissal and whether the process followed was fair. The court had to consider the evidence presented regarding the grounds for dismissal, the procedural steps taken, and whether Mitchell's rights were adequately protected throughout the process. Additionally, the court examined the proportionality of the dismissal in relation to the alleged misconduct and whether any mitigating factors should have been considered by Santos Ltd.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and arguments from both parties. The court found that while Santos Ltd had legitimate reasons for initiating the dismissal process, there were procedural deficiencies in how the process was handled. The court emphasised that while the reasons for dismissal were valid, the failure to adhere to proper procedural steps rendered the dismissal unfair. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Mitchell, finding that his dismissal was indeed unfair. The court ordered Santos Ltd to reinstate Mitchell to his previous position and provide appropriate compensation for the procedural breaches.

Orders