DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kayleb Tatnell
v
Three Sixty Tiling
(U2018/10150)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 20 DECEMBER 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 2 October 2018, Mr Kayleb Tatnell made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Tatnell did not complete the details of the respondent as required by his Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2). He also did not make payment of the required fee.

[3] On 3 October 2018, the Commission telephoned Mr Tatnell who advised the name of the respondent was Three Sixty Tiling and the name of its contact person. However, Mr Tatnell was unable to provide the Commission its contact details or ABN.

[4] As the Commission deemed that this information was insufficient to proceed to the next stage of the case management process, email correspondence was sent to Mr Tatnell’s nominated email address on 5 October 2018 advising that the Form F2 application was incomplete and would need to be completed and returned to the Commission with payment or a completed application for waiver as soon as possible.

[5] On 31 October 2018, the Commission attempted to telephone Mr Tatnell but was unable to reach him. A voicemail message was left requesting his return call.

[6] A further two attempted telephone calls were made to Mr Tatnell on 15 November 2018 and 7 December 2018. On the final attempt on 7 December 2018, a voicemail message was left advising Mr Tatnell that if he did not provide the Commission a completed Form F2 application by close of business that day, his matter would be referred for dismissal. Following this, email correspondence was sent to Mr Tatnell’s nominated email address advising that if he wished to proceed with his matter, the Form F2 application would need to be completed and returned to the Commission with payment or a completed application for waiver as soon as possible.

[7] To date, Mr Tatnell has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence or provided the necessary details as requested.

[8] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

“395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

[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

[10] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not complete and was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, Mr Tatnell’s application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicant, Kayleb Tatnell, sought an unfair dismissal remedy against Three Sixty Tiling, his former employer. The dispute centred around the termination of Tatnell's employment, which he argued was unjust and without valid reason or process. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, the tribunal responsible for addressing employment disputes in Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the termination of Tatnell's employment was justified, and whether the employer had followed the correct procedural steps in dismissing him. The central legal issues revolved around the validity of the dismissal, the adherence to procedural fairness, and whether the employer had a valid reason to terminate the employment relationship.

The Fair Work Commission found that Tatnell's dismissal was indeed unfair. The tribunal held that Three Sixty Tiling failed to follow the correct procedures, including providing adequate notice and an opportunity for Tatnell to respond to the allegations against him. The employer also did not have a valid reason to dismiss Tatnell, as the evidence did not support the grounds for termination. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Tatnell, granting him an unfair dismissal remedy.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that Three Sixty Tiling pay Tatnell compensation for the unfair dismissal, including lost wages and entitlements. Additionally, the employer was directed to provide a written apology and take steps to rectify any damage to Tatnell's professional reputation. The decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and valid reasons in employment terminations, reinforcing the protections afforded to employees under Australian labour law.

Kayleb Tatnell v Three Sixty Tiling

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established