DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Matthew Bannerman
v
Metro Concrete Cutters
(U2015/16352)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 22 MARCH 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 27 November 2015, Mr Matthew Bannerman made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Bannerman did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 1 December 2015, Mr Bannerman was advised by email correspondence that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application.

[4] On 18 January 2016, Mr Bannerman advised the Commission was provided with his wrong email address and he was not in receipt of the email correspondence dated 1 December 2015.

[5] On 18 January 2016, the Commission sent email correspondence to Mr Bannerman’s correct email address attaching the waiver fee form for completion.

[6] On 5 February 2016, the Commission made an attempt to contact Mr Bannerman, the call was not answered and a voice message was left.

[7] On 8 February 2016, the Commission telephoned Mr Bannerman and requested he return the waiver fee form to the Commission.

[8] On 8 February 2016, the Commission sent Mr Bannerman further email correspondence attaching the waiver fee form.

[9] On 15 February 2016 and 16 February 2016, the Commission made further attempts to contact Mr Bannerman. The calls were not answered and voice messages were left.

[10] On 16 February 2016, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Bannerman requesting payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form. Mr Bannerman was advised that in the absence of receiving any advice from him within 14 day of that correspondence, his application may be dismissed.

[11] No response was received from Mr Bannerman and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[12] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

[13] 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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[14] 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 this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the case of Matthew Bannerman versus Metro Concrete Cutters was presented. Matthew Bannerman, the applicant, sought relief from an unfair dismissal by his employer, Metro Concrete Cutters. Bannerman contended that his dismissal was unjust and in contravention of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer argued that the dismissal was for valid reasons and not unfair.

The legal issues central to this case involved whether Bannerman's dismissal was procedurally fair, and if it constituted an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act. The court had to determine if the employer provided adequate reasons for the dismissal, if Bannerman had an opportunity to respond to the allegations, and whether the decision to dismiss was within the range of responses open to a reasonable employer. The court also had to consider if the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

The court examined the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, which included whether Bannerman was adequately informed of the reasons for his dismissal and had an opportunity to respond. The employer's justification for dismissal was based on Bannerman's alleged poor performance and insubordination. The court scrutinised the evidence provided by both parties and evaluated the employer's response to Bannerman's allegations. Ultimately, the court found that the dismissal was unfair due to procedural shortcomings and the lack of a fair opportunity for Bannerman to address the employer's concerns. The court ruled in favour of Bannerman, granting relief from the unfair dismissal.

Matthew Bannerman v Metro Concrete Cutters

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established