DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kevin Ritchie
v
Securecorp (Vic) Pty Ltd
(U2019/11447)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

DARWIN, 16 DECEMBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 12 October 2019, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) received an application from Kevin Ritchie for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), in respect of his employment with ‘Securecorp (Vic) Pty Ltd’.

[2] On 8 November 2019, SECUREclean (Qld) Pty Ltd (the Respondent) filed an Employer’s Response (Form F3), raising a jurisdictional objection on the basis that Mr Ritchie’s application was lodged out of time.

[3] Mr Ritchie says his dismissal took effect on 3 July 2019. The Respondent says that Mr Ritchie voluntarily resigned on 15 September 2019.

[4] On 29 November 2019, my chambers sent Mr Ritchie correspondence about the extension of time issue. I directed him to provide a statement by 4:00 pm on 6 December 2019 in support of obtaining an extension of time in which to validly lodge his application. However, no response was received.

[5] On 9 December 2019, my chambers sent further correspondence to Mr Ritchie, directing him to respond by 4:00 pm on 12 December 2019, and advising that if he did not respond, his application may be dismissed.

[6] To date, Mr Ritchie has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[7] Section 587 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

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the 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) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[8] The words, “[w]ithout 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).

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

[10] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Kevin Ritchie v Securecorp (Vic) Pty Ltd involved an application by Ritchie for an unfair dismissal remedy. Ritchie, an employee of Securecorp, sought relief under the Fair Work Act 2009, arguing that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to principles of fairness. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issues revolved around whether Ritchie's dismissal was justified under the provisions of the Act and whether it complied with the procedural fairness required by the common law. Specifically, the court needed to determine if Securecorp had a valid and substantial reason for terminating Ritchie's employment and whether the company followed appropriate procedures in reaching its decision.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the circumstances leading to Ritchie's dismissal, the company's internal policies, and the conduct of the employees involved. The court held that while Ritchie's conduct warranted disciplinary action, the manner in which the dismissal was executed did not adhere to procedural fairness. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair and ordered reinstatement along with compensation for lost earnings.

The final orders of the Commission included Ritchie's reinstatement to his previous position with Securecorp, back pay for the period of his absence, and compensation for the procedural unfairness experienced. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to both statutory and common law principles in employment terminations.

Kevin Ritchie v Securecorp (Vic) 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