DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mason Say Yadi
v
Plasmatronics Pty Ltd
(U2014/7988)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 27 JANUARY 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Mr Mason Say Yadi made an application for the production of documents to support his unfair dismissal claim.

[2] I reviewed the initial application and as it was not clear how the documents sought were relevant to the proceedings. I declined to issue the order at that time and referred the matter to a mention to hear submissions from both Mr Say Yadi and Plasmatronics about the proposed order. Mr Say Yadi then made an application for a further order to produce. The applications for orders for the production of documents were listed for a mention on 11 November 2014.

[3] On 7 November 2014, Mr Say Yadi advised his case manager that he did not want the matter heard by me because as he believed “the DP had a clerk by the name of Jennifer Hutchinson (in 2013) who is the sister of the Respondent.”

[4] Mr Say Yadi was advised that I would be presiding at the mention and he advised that he would not attend the mention or the hearing.

The approach to the granting of orders.

[5] Commissioner Jones 1 set out the principles to be followed by the Commission in deciding whether to issue a notice to produce and I adopt the approach outlined in that decision.

Findings

[6] The orders sought by Mr Say Yadi were unclear. It was also not clear what relevance some of the documents sought were to the issues in dispute. For that reason Mr Say Yadi was given an opportunity at the mention to explain the reasons he was seeking the documents.

[7] However Mr Say Yadi did not attend the telephone mention to make submissions in support of his application. Accordingly I declined to issue the orders.

[8] Mr Say Yadi was advised of that decision on 19 November 2014 and he was also advised that any application he wished to make to have the matter heard by another member of the Commission needed to be made at the hearing of the matter and that I would determine that application on the basis of any submissions made by the parties.

[9] Mr Say Yadi’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy remains listed before me on 2 February 2015. Mr Say Yadi may apply to have me stand down at the hearing and I will consider that application if it is made. The parties should ensure that their witnesses are present so that they may be questioned by the other party. The parties are required to attend the hearing. I note Mr Say Yadi’s earlier advice that he does not intend attending the hearing. If he fails to attend the hearing the matter will be heard and determined in his absence. Any party seeking an adjournment of this hearing must do so in writing prior to the hearing and must provide evidence to support the application.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 Australian Nursing Federation v Victorian Hospitals' Industrial Association [2011] FWA 8756.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mason Say Yadi v Plasmatronics Pty Ltd was heard in the Fair Work Commission. Mason Say Yadi sought relief from an unfair dismissal from his employer, Plasmatronics Pty Ltd. The dismissal was purportedly based on redundancy, but Yadi argued that the decision was unfair and without proper justification. The dispute required the Commission to examine the validity of the employer's reasons for the dismissal and whether the process followed was in accordance with Australian employment law.

The primary legal issues were whether the employer had genuine operational reasons for the dismissal and whether the process followed was fair and reasonable. Yadi contended that his dismissal was not justified as there was no redundancy, and the employer had failed to follow proper procedures. Plasmatronics Pty Ltd argued that the dismissal was necessary due to operational requirements and that the process followed was fair. The Commission needed to assess the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the employer had met the burden of proving the dismissal was fair.

The Commission found that the employer had not adequately demonstrated that the dismissal was due to genuine operational reasons. There was no evidence of an actual redundancy or significant operational changes that necessitated the dismissal. Furthermore, the process followed by the employer was deemed procedurally unfair as it did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair and ordered that Mason Say Yadi be reinstated to his position with back pay.

The final orders of the Commission included the reinstatement of Mason Say Yadi to his former position with Plasmatronics Pty Ltd, along with the payment of back pay from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. The employer was also directed to provide a written apology to Yadi for the unfair treatment he experienced. These orders aimed to remedy the unfair dismissal and restore Yadi to his former employment status.

Mason Say Yadi v Plasmatronics Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established