DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Luke Saliba
v
Streaky Pty Ltd T/A Streaky
(U2013/16658)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 10 AUGUST 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 18 December 2013, Mr Luke Saliba made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 13 February 2014. The matter did not settle at conciliation.

[3] On 2 April 2014, Mr Binay Prasad of Goodman Group Lawyers, who was then representing Mr Saliba, wrote to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) requesting the direction and arbitration dates be vacated as the parties had reached an in-principle settlement agreement. Mr Prasad advised once terms of the agreement had been complied with, a Notice of Discontinuance would be filed.

[4] On 27 June 2014, a Notice of Representative Ceasing to Act was filed by Goodman Group Lawyers.

[5] The Commission attempted to contact Mr Saliba by telephone on the following dates:

29 June 2015

28 July 2015

31 July 2015

3 August 2015

4 August 2015

[6] The Commission was unsuccessful in making telephone contact with Mr Saliba and was unable to leave voicemail messages.

[7] On 31 July 2015, an email was sent to Mr Saliba advising the Commission had made numerous attempts to contact him and asked him to advise the status of the matter or if the matter should otherwise be discontinued and closed. Mr Saliba was advised in the absence of a response, a decision may be issued in the matter.

[8] To date the Commission has not received any response from Mr Saliba.

[9] Having regard to the material before me, I will exercise my power under section 587(3)(a) of the Act and dismiss Mr Saliba’s application. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luke Saliba has applied to the Fair Work Commission for relief from an unfair dismissal, challenging the decision of Streaky Pty Ltd T/A Streaky to terminate his employment. The Fair Work Commission, led by Deputy President J R A Richards, was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was unfair and, if so, what remedy might be appropriate.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether there were any valid reasons for the termination. Mr Saliba argued that the dismissal was unjust and without valid reason, while Streaky Pty Ltd maintained that the dismissal was justified due to his misconduct and failure to adhere to company policies. The Commission needed to weigh the employer's right to manage its business against the employee's right to procedural fairness and protection from unjust termination.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employer's decision to dismiss Mr Saliba was not unfair. The employer had presented substantial evidence of the employee's misconduct, including repeated instances of unauthorised absences, failure to follow company policies, and inappropriate conduct at work. The Commission concluded that the employer had followed proper procedures in issuing the termination notice and that the dismissal was a reasonable response to the employee's behaviour. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed. The Commission did not deem it necessary to order any further remedy or compensation for Mr Saliba.

Luke Saliba v Streaky Pty Ltd T/A Streaky

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established