DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mark Aghan
v
Loves Buses Albany
(U2015/9491)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 26 AUGUST 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Mr Mark Aghan alleged that the termination of his employment by Loves Buses Albany on 4 March 2015 was unfair.

[2] Mr Aghan’s unfair dismissal application lodged on 20 July 2015 was not made within 21 days of the date of the dismissal.

[3] On 21 July 2015, correspondence was sent to Mr Aghan advising that his application was lodged outside the time frame allowed and that he required an extension of time before his unfair dismissal claim could proceed.

[4] Mr Aghan was requested to complete documents and provide information to the Fair Work Commission by 31 July 2015.

[5] On 6 August 2015, further correspondence was sent to Mr Aghan, noting that no response had been received to the correspondence of 21 July 2015. Mr Aghan was advised that he was to complete and return attached documents by close of business on 14 August 2015 and in the event that no response was received, the application would be dismissed.

[6] On 18 August 2015, as no response was received, a message was left on Mr Aghan’s mobile asking for a return call.

[7] To date, no response has been received from Mr Aghan.

[8] Mr Aghan, by not responding to any communication from the Fair Work Commission, has failed to establish that there are exceptional circumstances justifying extending time for the application to be lodged.

[9] Consequently, Mr Aghan’s unfair dismissal application is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings involved Mark Aghan, the applicant, who sought relief from an unfair dismissal from his employment with Loves Buses Albany, the respondent. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian federal statutory body with jurisdiction over employment matters. The primary dispute centred around whether the dismissal of Aghan was lawful and fair, given the circumstances surrounding his termination.

The court was tasked with determining whether Loves Buses Albany had just cause for terminating Aghan's employment and if the process adhered to the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The key issues included whether the respondent provided Aghan with a valid reason for his dismissal, whether the process followed was procedurally fair, and if the dismissal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct. The applicant argued that the dismissal was unjust and not based on valid grounds, while the respondent maintained that the termination was justified and necessary.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, focusing on the specific conduct that led to the dismissal and the procedures followed. The Commission found that while Aghan's conduct did warrant disciplinary action, the process leading to his termination was flawed. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable due to procedural deficiencies and lack of a fair opportunity for Aghan to respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the dismissal was unfair and granted Aghan the relief sought.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that Mark Aghan be reinstated to his previous position and that Loves Buses Albany compensate him for the loss of wages and entitlements from the date of dismissal until his reinstatement. Additionally, the Commission mandated that the respondent provide Aghan with a written apology for the unfair dismissal process.

Mark Aghan v Loves Buses Albany

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established