Kelvin Walsh v Ambulance Victoria

[2014] FWC 2986

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

AMENDED DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kelvin Walsh
v
Ambulance Victoria
(U2012/12308)

COMMISSIONER CRIBB

MELBOURNE, 8 MAY 2014

Amending further decision in regard to remedy [2014] FWC 2351, issued 11/4/14 - correcting error in regard to compensation calculation.

[1] It has been brought to the Commission’s attention, by Mr Walsh’s representative, United Voice (the union), that there is an arithmetical error in paragraph 41 of the decision 1 issued in respect of the compensation payable to Mr Walsh. This view was confirmed by the respondent’s representative.

[2] On reviewing the figures set out in paragraph 41, it appears that the incorrect high income threshold was used. Instead of $61,650.00, the correct figure is $123,300.00. Half of this amount is then $61,650.00.

[3] Therefore, the calculations set out in paragraph 42 are also incorrect.

[4] The revised, correct calculations are, therefore, that in terms of the requirements of section 392(5) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), the lesser of the amount worked out under subsection (6) ($45,666.40 gross) and half of the amount of the high income threshold, immediately before the dismissal ($61,650.00 gross) is $45,666.40 (gross).

[5] As the amount of provisional compensation ($45,666.40 gross), calculated according to Sprigg v Paul Licensed Festival Supermarket 2 (Sprigg), is lower than the compensation cap ($61,650.00), calculated in accordance with section 392(5) of the Act, the amount of compensation to be ordered is $45,666.40 (gross).

[6] By an order 3 issued on 11 April 2014, the Commission directed that Ambulance Victoria pay to Mr Kevin Walsh the amount of $30, 825.00 (gross). As this amount was incorrect, a correction order4 will be issued requiring the payment of a total amount of $45,666.40. It is the Commission’s understanding that $30,825.00 (gross) has been paid to Mr Walsh. Therefore, as a result of issuing the correction order, an additional amount of $14,841.40 (gross) is to be paid to Mr Walsh.

1 [2014] FWC 2351

2 (1998) 88 IR 21

3 PR549476

4 PR550323

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Kelvin Walsh versus Ambulance Victoria, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with reviewing a decision concerning the amendment of a prior remedy. The initial decision, issued on 11 April 2014, addressed issues of unfair dismissal and compensation owed to the applicant. The applicant, Mr. Walsh, had been dismissed by Ambulance Victoria and sought redress through the Fair Work Commission. This appeal centred around the correction of an error in the calculation of compensation in the prior decision.

The legal issues before the Commission involved the accuracy of the compensation figure awarded to Mr. Walsh in the original decision. The Commission needed to determine whether the initial calculation had been erroneous and, if so, to rectify it by providing a correct compensation amount. This required a meticulous review of the evidence and the application of the relevant legal principles to ensure that the remedy was both fair and legally sound.

Upon reviewing the matter, the Commission identified that the initial decision contained an error in the computation of the compensation payable to Mr. Walsh. The error stemmed from an oversight in the application of the relevant legislative provisions. The Commission proceeded to correct this error by recalculating the compensation, taking into account all appropriate factors. The recalculated compensation was deemed to be the correct amount that Mr. Walsh should have received. The Commission's decision thus served to amend the prior remedy to reflect the accurate compensation figure.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission upheld the original decision's findings on unfair dismissal but amended the remedy to correct the compensation calculation. The revised compensation amount was determined to be the correct figure based on the applicable laws and evidence. This decision ensures that Mr. Walsh receives the appropriate compensation for the unfair dismissal, rectifying the error identified in the initial decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established