Matthew Gugiatti v SolarisCare Foundation Ltd - [2016] FWCFB 280

[2016] FWCFB 280

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604—Appeal of decision

Matthew Gugiatti
v
SolarisCare Foundation Ltd
(C2015/3759)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS

SYDNEY, 5 FEBRUARY 2016

Permission to appeal against decision [2015] FWC 2447 of Commissioner Williams at Perth on 9 April 2015 in matter number U2014/11321.

[1] On 9 April 2015, Commissioner Williams issued a decision 1 finding that the appellant, Matthew Gugiatti, had not been dismissed from his employment with SolarisCare Foundation Ltd (SolarisCare). This was because Mr Gugiatti was under a contract of employment for a specified period of time, and his employment terminated at the end of that period. The Commissioner further found that even if Mr Gugiatti had been dismissed, he had not completed the minimum employment period to be eligible for an unfair dismissal remedy. Mr Gugiatti’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy was therefore dismissed.

[2] On 30 April 2015, Mr Gugiatti filed a notice of appeal against the Commissioner’s decision. The appeal was originally listed to be heard in June 2015, but was adjourned to 19 January 2016 at the appellant’s request, on medical grounds.

[3] On 15 January 2016, Mr Gugiatti emailed the Commission to request a further adjournment on medical grounds. On 18 January 2016, he was advised that his application would not be granted and that the matter would proceed as scheduled at 2:00pm Eastern Standard Time on 19 January 2016.

[4] On 19 January 2016, approximately five minutes before the hearing was due to commence, Mr Gugiatti provided a statutory declaration outlining further medical grounds on which he contended the matter should be adjourned again, for an unspecified period. We considered the statutory declaration filed in support of the adjournment application. We decided to refuse the appellant’s application on the grounds that we were not satisfied that the appellant was medically incapable of appearing before the Commission and advancing submissions in support of his appeal. The appellant was advised accordingly and the matter was stood over to the next day.

[5] The hearing proceeded on 20 January 2016. There was no appearance for Mr Gugiatti.

[6] Mr Gugiatti has not complied with directions to provide an outline of submissions in support of his appeal before the hearing. The only material we have before us in support of his appeal, therefore, is his notice of appeal itself. Several of the grounds of appeal relate to allegedly improper actions by SolarisCare, e.g. failing to produce documents and submitting evidence close to the hearing date at first instance. Mr Gugiatti also contends that the Commissioner made errors of fact that led to him dismissing the application on jurisdictional grounds (e.g. finding that SolarisCare was a small business), and that the Commissioner did not adequately consider the impact his ill health had on his ability to prepare for the first-instance hearing.

Consideration

[7] The appeal is made under s.604(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act), which provides:

604 Appeal of decisions

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Matthew Gugiatti v SolarisCare Foundation Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] FWCFB 280
Decision Date: 5 FEBRUARY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court considered an application for special leave to appeal a decision of Commissioner Williams of the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, Matthew Gugiatti, sought to challenge the decision in relation to a matter involving unfair dismissal. The respondent, SolarisCare Foundation Ltd, opposed the application on the basis that the appeal was not in the public interest. The Court had to determine whether special leave should be granted to appeal the Commission's decision.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's appeal was in the public interest. The Court needed to balance the applicant's right to seek special leave against the public interest in maintaining the finality of decisions made by the Fair Work Commission. The Court also considered whether the appeal had a reasonable chance of success, and whether there were any other factors that should be taken into account.

The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that his appeal was in the public interest. The Court noted that the applicant had not identified any significant legal or factual issues that had not already been considered by the Commission, and that the appeal was unlikely to result in a different outcome. The Court also found that the applicant had not shown that there were any other factors that would justify granting special leave. The Court concluded that the appeal was not in the public interest and dismissed the application for special leave.

The Court did not make any orders as the application for special leave was dismissed. The decision of the Fair Work Commission remained final and binding. The applicant was not granted permission to appeal the decision to the Full Bench of the Federal Court.

Orders