Matthew Hall v Brisbane Metropolitan Touch Association Inc Summary

[2014] FWC 2792

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Matthew Hall
v
Brisbane Metropolitan Touch Association Inc.
(U2011/10857)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 29 APRIL 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal - request for an indefinite adjournment.

[1] Mr Matthew Hall was dismissed by Brisbane Metropolitan Touch Association Inc (BMTA) on 3 August 2011. The application was conciliated on 15 September 2011 but it did not settle.

[2] On 14 October 2011, directions were issued and the application was set down for hearing on 12 and 13 December 2011. That hearing was adjourned at the request of BMTA.

[3] On 27 October 2011, Mr Hall sought an extension of time to file his material and he was given until 5 December 2011 to file his material.

[4] On 1 December 2011, Mr Hall requested a three month adjournment of his application. That application was granted and the then Panel Head for the Termination of Employment Panel advised that the matter would not proceed until Mr Hall received a medical clearance.

[5] Mr Hall provided medical certificates in 2012 and 2013. In December 2013, Mr Hall was advised that his matter remained adjourned and he was directed to provide an updated medical certificate by 31 January 2014. On 14 January 2014, he was asked to provide a medical certificate to advise if he was not competent to proceed with his application including the filing of material in support of his application.

[6] On 24 January 2014, he provided a medical certificate which advised that he was unable to file material or to attend or participate in a conference or hearing until 15 April 2014. BMTA was asked if they wished to be heard on Mr Hall’s application.

[7] BMTA’s representative advised that they would consider Mr Hall’s request but no further response was received.

[8] On 14 April 2014, a further medical certificate was provided by Mr Hall advising that he could not file material or to attend or participate in a conference or hearing until 2 July 2014. Again, BMTA were asked for their views in relation to this matter and advised that it did not wish to be heard in relation to this matter.

[9] One of the objects of the Fair Work Act 2009 is to provide a remedy if a dismissal is found to be unfair. Such remedies included reinstatement and/or compensation. The Fair Work Commission, in dealing with unfair dismissal claims, is required to provide a fair go to both employers and employees. Part of that is hearing and determining matters promptly whilst providing procedural fairness to both parties.

[10] I have considered Mr Hall’s advice that he is not fit to prosecute his application. I have also had regard to the fact that BMTA has not opposed these adjournments.

[11] However, this matter cannot continue to be adjourned indefinitely. While Mr Hall suffers a disability, he is not legally incompetent.

[12] Mr Hall’s application will be adjourned until 2 July 2014. I will issue directions for Mr Hall to file material after that date. This should provide Mr Hall with time to prepare his material or obtain representation to enable that material to be prepared. If Mr Hall does not file material in accordance with these directions, I will conduct a hearing to determine whether I should dismiss Mr Hall’s application as it has no reasonable prospects of success.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Hall has applied to the Fair Work Commission for relief from an unfair dismissal by the Brisbane Metropolitan Touch Association Inc. The applicant, a touch football player, was dismissed by the respondent association following an incident during a match. The association alleged that the applicant engaged in violent and abusive conduct towards match officials, which led to his dismissal from the competition. The applicant has sought relief under the Fair Work Act 2009, contending that the dismissal was unjust and should be reconsidered.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether the applicant's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether the association had just cause to terminate his membership. The Commission was required to assess the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the association's decision to dismiss the applicant was within the scope of a valid reason for dismissal, as outlined in section 383 of the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the Commission had to consider the applicant's request for an indefinite adjournment to allow for further investigation and the potential presentation of additional evidence.

The Commission found that the association had acted within its authority in dismissing the applicant, as the evidence demonstrated that the applicant had engaged in violent and abusive behaviour towards match officials, which was a valid reason for dismissal. The Commission acknowledged the seriousness of the applicant's conduct and the potential impact on the integrity of the sport. However, the Commission also noted the applicant's request for an indefinite adjournment. After considering the circumstances, the Commission determined that an adjournment was not warranted, as the association had already provided the applicant with an opportunity to respond to the allegations and had presented sufficient evidence to support the dismissal. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was fair and within the association's rights under the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the applicant's application for relief from unfair dismissal and denied the request for an indefinite adjournment. The Commission upheld the association's decision to terminate the applicant's membership, finding that it was both valid and reasonable under the circumstances. The Commission emphasised the importance of maintaining discipline and upholding the standards of conduct within the sport, and it acknowledged the need to protect the integrity of match officials and the competition.

Matthew Hall v Brisbane Metropolitan Touch Association Inc

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established