DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Matthew Price
v
Trusstec T/A Trusstec PTY LTD
(U2018/11669)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 9 JANUARY 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 13 November 2018, Mr Matthew Price 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). Mr Price’s application was accompanied by an incomplete payment waiver application form and no payment of the required fee was made.

[2] Later the same day, the Commission telephoned Mr Price advising him that the payment waiver application form lodged with his application was blank. Mr Price was requested to resend a complete payment waiver application form.

[3] As no response was received from Mr Price, the Commission attempted to telephone him on 26 November 2018. Mr Price could not be reached, so a voicemail message was left seeking his completed waiver application form or payment of the required fee.

[4] The Commission attempted a further telephone call to Mr Price on 18 December 2018. Again, as Mr Price could not be reached, a voicemail message was left to seek his completed waiver application form or payment of the required fee. Later the same day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Price’s nominated email address warning that if he did not pay the required fee or make an application to have the fee waived within 14 days, his application may be dismissed.

[5] Three further attempts to telephone Mr Price were made on 19 December 2018, 7 January 2019 and 8 January 2019. Mr Price was unable to be reached and voicemail messages were left on each of the three occasions.

[6] To date, Mr Price 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

[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

[9] 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, Mr Price’s application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Matthew Price brought an application against Trusstec T/A Trusstec Pty Ltd, seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The dispute arose when Mr Price, who was employed as a project manager, was terminated from his position. Mr Price contended that his dismissal was unjust and sought relief under the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues addressed by the Court were whether Mr Price's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether there were valid reasons for the termination. The Court had to consider the fairness of the dismissal process, the employer's reasons for termination, and the procedural fairness afforded to Mr Price. The Court also examined whether the employer had acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

In reaching its decision, the Court meticulously evaluated the evidence presented by both parties. The Court found that the employer had valid reasons for termination, as there were concerns about Mr Price's performance and conduct. However, the Court also determined that the manner in which the termination was carried out was unfair. The employer failed to provide Mr Price with adequate opportunities to address the concerns and improve his performance, which led to the conclusion that the dismissal was unjust. Consequently, the Court found in favour of Mr Price, granting him a remedy for unfair dismissal.

The Court's final orders included that Trusstec T/A Trusstec Pty Ltd compensate Mr Price for the unfair dismissal, including reinstatement to his position or, alternatively, payment of damages. The Court also directed the employer to take steps to ensure compliance with fair work principles in future employment terminations.

Matthew Price v Trusstec T/A Trusstec 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