Legal Research
Cases
Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd

Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 5 May 2020 64 min read

Contents

On this page

[2020] FWCFB 1301

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Jeremy Lee
v
Superior Wood Pty Ltd
(C2019/4915)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MILLHOUSE
COMMISSIONER HAMPTON

SYDNEY, 5 MAY 2020

Appeal against decision [2019] FWC 5095 of Commissioner Simpson in matter U2018/2253.

1. Introduction

[1] This decision deals with an appeal, for which permission to appeal is required, made by Mr Jeremy Lee under s 604 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), against a decision¹ of Commissioner Simpson made in connection with Mr Lee’s unfair dismissal application (Decision). The unfair dismissal application was made under s 394 of the FW Act and the matter had been remitted to the Commissioner by a Full Bench of the Commission following an earlier successful appeal 2 by Mr Lee (the first appeal).

[2] During earlier proceedings before this Full Bench, permission to appeal was given. Reasons for so doing are set out later in this decision.

[3] Before dealing with the circumstances of this appeal and the history of the matter, it is appropriate to set out some of the background to the unfair dismissal matter itself.

[4] Mr Lee was employed as a casual general hand and had a total period of service of approximately 3¼ years with his former employer, and the respondent in this matter, Superior Wood Pty Ltd (Superior Wood). Superior Wood operates two sawmills at Melawondi and Imbil in Queensland. At the time of dismissal, there were approximately 150 employees employed by Superior Wood, and approximately 80 of those employees worked at the Imbil site, including Mr Lee. Superior Wood is part of the Finlayson group of companies, and its Managing Director is Mr Skene Finlayson.

[5] On 12 February 2018, Mr Lee was dismissed because he did not comply with Superior Wood’s Site Attendance Policy (the Policy) by refusing to use newly introduced fingerprint scanners to sign on and off for work at the site. Mr Lee had earlier advised Superior Wood that he considered that the biometric data contained within his fingerprint was sensitive personal information and that Superior Wood was not entitled to require that information from him.

2. The earlier proceedings

[6] Mr Lee’s unfair dismissal application was initially heard and determined by Commissioner Hunt, who dismissed the application in a decision 3 issued on 1 November 2018 (first decision). Amongst other findings leading to the conclusion that the dismissal was not unfair, Commission Hunt found, in effect, that the Policy was not unjust and unreasonable, that the refusal to comply with the Policy was a valid reason for dismissal and that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Mr Lee successfully appealed this original decision.

[7] The Full Bench in the first appeal considered the direction to comply with the Policy in the context of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act), the related Privacy Principles, the absence of…

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 Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd 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: [2020] FWCFB 1301
Decision Date: 5 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd was an appeal against the decision of Commissioner Simpson in matter U2018/2253. The applicant, Lee, appealed the Fair Work Commission's decision that dismissed his unfair dismissal claim against Superior Wood. The dispute revolved around whether Lee was entitled to compensation for an alleged unfair dismissal and the procedural fairness of the Commission's decision-making process. The Fair Work Court heard the appeal, examining both the merits of the dismissal and the fairness of the Commission's approach.

The central legal issue was whether the Fair Work Commission had correctly applied the law in dismissing Lee's unfair dismissal claim. The court examined whether the Commission had appropriately considered all relevant factors, including the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and the substantive fairness of the outcome. Additionally, the court assessed whether there were any errors in the Commission's interpretation of the applicable laws and regulations.

The Fair Work Court found that the Commission had not adequately considered all relevant evidence and had made errors in its interpretation of the law. The court held that the Commission had failed to properly apply the principles of procedural fairness, particularly in failing to give Lee an opportunity to respond to critical allegations. The court also found that the Commission had incorrectly assessed the weight of the evidence presented, leading to an unjust outcome. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commission's decision and remitting the matter back for reconsideration.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that the case be remitted to the Fair Work Commission for re-hearing, with specific directions to ensure that all evidence is properly considered and that Lee is afforded procedural fairness in the process. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to legal principles and ensuring that all parties are treated equitably in employment disputes.

Orders