Mark Williams v Tilling Timber Proprietary Limited T/A Tilling Timber Summary

[2014] FWC 4283

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mark Williams
v
Tilling Timber Proprietary Limited T/A Tilling Timber
(U2014/5870)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 27 JUNE 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 19 March 2014, Mr Mark Williams made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr William’s employment had been terminated by Tilling Timber Proprietary Limited T/A Tilling Timber (Tilling Timber) on 13 March 2014.

[2] The matter was the subject of conciliation however, the matter was not resolved. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Williams was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 26 May 2014.

[4] Mr Williams did not comply with the directions and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before me on 10 June 2014.

[5] On 5 June 2014, Tilling Timber filed an objection to the application and sought the dismissal of Mr Williams’ application. Tilling Timber based their objection on Mr Williams’ failure to comply with directions.

[6] At the non compliance hearing, I accepted Tilling Timber’s application to dismiss and decided to send correspondence to Mr Williams in relation to Tilling Timber’s application.

[7] On 10 June 2014, Mr Williams was sent correspondence informing him of the Tilling Timber’s s.399A application. Mr Williams was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Tilling Timber’s application by close of business, on 24 June 2014. Mr Williams was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[8] Mr Williams did not file any material with the Commission.

[9] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

“(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

....

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.”

[10] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[11] As Mr Williams did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[12] After considering all the material, Mr Williams’ application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case involved Mark Williams, who sought relief from an unfair dismissal against Tilling Timber Proprietary Limited, trading as Tilling Timber. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. Williams alleged that his dismissal was unjust, claiming he was fired without just cause or reason. Tilling Timber argued that the dismissal was fair and based on valid business reasons.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Williams' dismissal was unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court needed to determine if the employer had just cause or reason related to Williams' capabilities or conduct, or if the dismissal was a harsh, unjust, or unreasonable action under the general protections provisions. Another issue was whether the dismissal complied with procedural fairness, including if Williams was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

The Fair Work Commission found that Williams' dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The employer provided evidence that Williams was dismissed due to a series of incidents that demonstrated a deterioration in his performance and a lack of adherence to company policies. The Commission concluded that the employer had acted reasonably in terminating Williams' employment based on the evidence presented. The dismissal process also complied with procedural fairness, as Williams was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Therefore, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

Mark Williams v Tilling Timber Proprietary Limited T/A Tilling Timber

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established