DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mark Plan
v
Mark Vella
(U2019/6951)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 23 AUGUST 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 24 June 2019, Mr Mark Plan made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Plan’s application was made without payment of the application fee.

[3] On 25 June 2019, Mr Plan was asked by email and by telephone voicemail to pay the application fee or alternatively complete and submit a fee waiver application form.

[4] Further telephone calls to Mr Plan were made on 17 July 2019, 8 August 2019, 9 August 2019 and 20 August 2019 but were unsuccessful. A voice message was left for Mr Plan on each occasion requesting he call the Commission.

[5] To date Mr Plan has not contacted the Commission or provided the necessary details as requested.

[6] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

[7] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to that effect will be issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mark Plan v Mark Vella involved a dispute between the two parties regarding an unfair dismissal claim. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. Mark Vella alleged that his dismissal by Mark Plan was unjust and sought relief under the Fair Work Act.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the dismissal was genuine and whether the respondent had followed proper procedures. Additionally, the Commission considered if the dismissal was a proportionate response to the alleged misconduct. The applicant argued that the dismissal was unfair and that the employer had not provided adequate reasons or followed the correct process. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the dismissal was justified and that all procedural requirements had been met.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the reasons for the dismissal and the process followed. It assessed whether the employer had a valid reason to dismiss the applicant and whether the dismissal was carried out in a fair and reasonable manner. Ultimately, the Commission found that the dismissal was unfair, as the employer had not adequately justified the termination and had not followed proper procedures. The Commission ordered that the applicant be reinstated to his position and that compensation be paid for the period of unlawful termination.

Mark Plan v Mark Vella

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established