DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Lawrence Mario
v
ESS Compass Group Australia
(U2021/4645)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 15 JUNE 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 28 May 2021 Mr Lawrence Mario (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] On the Form F2 unfair dismissal application, the Applicant stated that the date he was notified of the dismissal was 27 May 2021 and that the date the dismissal took effect was 24 May 2021.

[3] ESS Compass Group Australia (Respondent), in its Form F3 Employer Response, objected to the application alleging that Mr Mario was not dismissed and that “[t]he Applicant’s employment has not yet terminated. The cessation of the Applicant’s employment will take effect on 24 June 2021 and the Applicant is currently on leave without pay whilst his notice period is being fulfilled.”

[4] The Applicant’s application was filed on 28 May 2021, 27 days before his dismissal is due to take effect.

[5] A Full Bench of the Commission considered the issue of a premature application in Mihajlovic v Lifeline Macarthur 1 finding that, although Mr Mihajlovic’s application had not been made in accordance with the FW Act, this was not something which rendered the application invalid, but rather was an irregularity which the Commission had the power to waive under s.586(b) of the FW Act. The Full Bench said:

“[42] Section 394(1) is, we consider, a procedural provision which identifies who may make an application, similar to the statutory provision considered in Emanuele v Australian Securities Commission. It does not go to the jurisdiction of the Commission to grant an unfair dismissal remedy under Part 3-2 of the Act. An application which was filed prematurely is properly to be characterised as one which was not made in accordance with s.394(1) of the Act. We do not consider that the Act evinces a purpose to render any such application automatically invalid and of no effect. Rather, the Commission is conferred with a discretionary power to dismiss such an application under s.587(1)(a), either on its own initiative or upon application. The Commission also has a discretion under s.586(b) to waive any irregularity in the form or manner in which an application is made. We consider that Mr Mihajlovic’s premature filing of his application constituted an irregularity in the manner in which he made his application capable of waiver under s.586(b).”

[6] On 11 June 2021 my Chambers emailed correspondence to the parties advising that it appeared the application had been made prior to the date the Applicant’s dismissal will take effect. That correspondence further noted that it was my preliminary view that I should exercise my discretion in accordance with s.586(b) of the FW Act and Mihajlovic v Lifeline Macarthur 2 to waive the irregularity and accept the premature application.

[7] On 11 June 2021 the Respondent notified my…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lawrence Mario v ESS Compass Group Australia and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] FWC 3433
Decision Date: 15 JUNE 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Lawrence Mario sought relief for unfair dismissal against his former employer, ESS Compass Group Australia. Mario alleged that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. He claimed that the decision to terminate his employment was based on invalid reasons, or at the very least, was disproportionate to the circumstances. ESS Compass Group Australia contested these claims, asserting that Mario's dismissal was both valid and procedurally fair, carried out in accordance with the company's policies and the applicable employment laws.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether Mario's dismissal was justified and whether the process leading to his termination complied with the requisite legal standards. The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties to determine whether the employer had a valid reason for the dismissal and if the process adhered to procedural fairness. Additionally, the Commission assessed if the dismissal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct and if there were mitigating factors that should be considered.

After a thorough review of the evidence and arguments presented, the Commission found that the employer had valid reasons for the dismissal and that the process was procedurally fair. The employer provided evidence of Mario's misconduct, including allegations of bullying and insubordination, and demonstrated that the dismissal was a proportionate response to the circumstances. The Commission concluded that Mario's dismissal was not unfair and dismissed his application. The decision emphasised the importance of employers adhering to fair and just processes when terminating employees, while also acknowledging the employer's right to manage their business in a manner that ensures a safe and productive workplace.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Mario's application for unfair dismissal remedy, affirming that the employer's actions were lawful and justified. This decision highlights the importance of employers maintaining a clear and transparent process when addressing employee misconduct and the necessity for employees to understand their rights and the procedures involved in such cases.

Orders