Matthew Heard v Russell Island Building Supplies

Case [2019] FWC 1610


[2019] FWC 1610
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Matthew Heard
v
Russell Island Building Supplies
(U2019/674)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 13 MARCH 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 22 January 2019, Mr Matthew Heard made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Tibbett did not sign his Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application (Form F2) and filed a fee waiver application form in lieu of payment of the required fee, however, the form was not fully completed.

[3] On 23 January 2019, the Commission attempted to telephone Mr Heard in relation to his application being unsigned and his incomplete fee waiver application form. This was unsuccessful as Mr Heard was unable to be reached. Following this, the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Heard’s nominated email address advising that he would need to sign and date his Form F2 as well as complete the waiver application form, and have both returned to the Commission as soon as possible.

[4] As no response was received from Mr Heard, the Commission attempted to telephone him on 13 February 2019 but was unable to reach him. A voicemail message was left seeking his return call.

[5] On 28 February 2019, final correspondence was sent to Mr Heard via both email and post warning that he lodge his completed Form F2 and fee waiver application form within seven days, or his application may be dismissed.

[6] To date, Mr Heard has not responded to the Commission’s correspondence.

[7] Section 395 of the Act, 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.”

[8] 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.”

[9] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not complete and was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, Mr Heard’s 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

<PR705758>

Details
AGLC
Matthew Heard v Russell Island Building Supplies [2019] FWC 1610
Case
[2019] FWC 1610
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Heard brought a claim against his former employer, Russell Island Building Supplies, seeking an unfair dismissal remedy. The primary dispute centred around the termination of his employment and the reasons provided for it. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The court was required to determine whether the dismissal was unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to consider if the employer had a valid reason related to Heard’s performance or conduct, and if the process followed was procedurally fair. The employer argued that the dismissal was due to Heard's unsatisfactory performance and failure to meet sales targets, while Heard contended that the dismissal was retaliatory and procedurally unfair.

The Fair Work Commission found that Heard’s dismissal was indeed unfair. The court held that while the employer had concerns about Heard’s performance, the termination process lacked procedural fairness. The employer failed to provide adequate opportunities for Heard to address the performance issues and did not follow a fair process before making the decision to terminate. Consequently, the Commission ordered that Heard be reinstated to his former position and awarded him compensation for the period of his unjust dismissal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.