Kris Stoddard v Veolia Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd Summary

[2025] FWC 1798

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kris Stoddard
v

Veolia Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd

(U2025/4358)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

CANBERRA, 25 JUNE 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – reopening application.

This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 by Mr Kris Stoddard (Applicant), seeking an unfair dismissal remedy in relation to his dismissal by Veolia Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd (Respondent).

The application was lodged on 9 April 2025 by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (TWU) on the Applicant’s behalf. On 14 May 2025, the TWU filed a Notice of Discontinuance and the application was accordingly closed.

On 15 May 2025, the Applicant wrote to the Commission requesting that his application be reopened on the basis that the Notice of Discontinuance had been filed without his instruction.

The Applicant’s request to reopen the application was listed for hearing on 25 June 2025. For the reasons given in transcript at the conclusion of the hearing, I find that the purported Notice of Discontinuance filed by the TWU is invalid and a nullity. As a result, the substantive application has not been discontinued by the Applicant and may proceed in the ordinary course.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

K Stoddard on his own behalf.

Hearing details:
2025.
By telephone:
June 25.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kris Stoddard versus Veolia Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd was heard by the Fair Work Commission. Mr Stoddard, the applicant, sought an unfair dismissal remedy against his former employer, Veolia Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd, the respondent. The Transport Workers’ Union of Australia initially filed an application on behalf of Mr Stoddard on April 9, 2025, which was subsequently closed on May 14, 2025, after the union filed a Notice of Discontinuance. However, Mr Stoddard contested this action, asserting that it was taken without his consent. He subsequently applied for the reopening of his application, which was heard on June 25, 2025.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Notice of Discontinuance filed by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia was valid and binding on Mr Stoddard. The court had to determine if the Notice of Discontinuance was properly executed and whether Mr Stoddard had indeed consented to the discontinuance of his application. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the application could proceed as if the Notice of Discontinuance had never been filed. This involved examining the authority and processes governing the filing and withdrawal of applications before the Fair Work Commission.

The Deputy President concluded that the Notice of Discontinuance was not valid. The reasoning provided was that the Notice of Discontinuance had been filed without Mr Stoddard's instruction or consent, rendering it ineffective. Consequently, the substantive application for unfair dismissal had not been properly discontinued and could proceed. The court found that the application should be reopened, allowing Mr Stoddard to continue with his claim against Veolia Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd. This decision underscores the importance of proper procedural compliance and the necessity for clear instructions from the applicant in legal proceedings.

Kris Stoddard v Veolia Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established