DECISION

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

Kane Rehe
v
DM Transport T/A DM Transport Pty Ltd
(U2018/9459)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 29 NOVEMBER 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 13 September 2018, Mr Kane Rehe made an application for unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Rehe’s application stated that he commenced employment with DM Transport T/A DM Transport Pty Ltd (DM Transport) on 1 October 2017 and his dismissal took effect on 27 August 2018.

[3] On 11 October 2018 DM Transport filed an Employers Response (form F3) objecting to the application on the grounds that Mr Rehe had not met the minimum employment period. DM Transport submitted that Mr Rehe commenced work on 4 October 2017 and that his dismissal took effect on 26 August 2018. It further submitted that it is a small business with fewer than 15 employees at the time of Mr Rehe’s termination

[4] The matter was listed for conciliation by telephone before a Fair Work Commission conciliator on 11 October 2018. However, the conciliation could not take place as Mr Rehe was not able to be contacted at that time.

[5] 5 November 2018, correspondence was sent to Mr Rehe indicating that based on the information contained in the Employer Response it appeared he may not have served the minimum employment period. The correspondence required Mr Rehe to file a statement within seven days to support his claim of having served the minimum employment period.

[6] On 13 November 2018, correspondence was sent to Mr Rehe noting he had previously been directed to file a statement in the Commission but had not done so. He was given until 4.00pm on Friday, 16 November 2018 to respond and was advised that in the absence of any material being received his application may be dismissed.

[7] A final attempt was made to contact Mr Rehe by telephone on 26 November 2018.

[8] To date Mr Rehe has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[9] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[10] The words, “Without limiting when FWC may dismiss an application”, at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[11] In the circumstances I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Kane Rehe brought an application for unfair dismissal remedy against DM Transport T/A DM Transport Pty Ltd. Mr. Rehe claimed that his termination by DM Transport was unjust and sought reinstatement, compensation, or a combination of both. The Fair Work Commission was the forum for this dispute, tasked with determining the merits of Mr. Rehe's application.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether Mr. Rehe's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if so, whether the dismissal was justified by a valid reason. The Commission considered the fairness of the termination, the reasons provided by the employer, and the context of Mr. Rehe's employment history and performance. It also examined whether the employer followed the correct procedural steps in terminating the employment.

The Commission found that while DM Transport had legitimate reasons for terminating Mr. Rehe's employment, the manner in which the termination was handled was flawed. Specifically, the employer failed to provide adequate warnings and opportunities for improvement before dismissing Mr. Rehe. The Commission concluded that the termination was unjust, as it lacked procedural fairness. Consequently, Mr. Rehe was awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

The Fair Work Commission ordered DM Transport to pay Mr. Rehe compensation amounting to eight weeks' gross salary. Additionally, DM Transport was required to pay Mr. Rehe's legal costs associated with the application.

Kane Rehe v DM Transport T/A DM Transport 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