DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Michael Clyde
v
Respondent
(U2015/10420)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 9 OCTOBER 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 4 September 2015, Mr Michael Clyde made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The application form filed by Mr Clyde in the Fair Work Commission was incomplete as he did not complete the name details of the Respondent in the application and the application was not signed and dated.

[3] On 7 September 2015, Mr Clyde was emailed a letter advising that his application was incomplete and he was requested to forward a completed application within 14 days if he still wished to pursue the application. The letter also advised that in the absence of any advice from Mr Clyde within after that time, the application may be dismissed.

[4] On 17 September 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Clyde and a voice mail message was left requesting he call back.

[5] On 18 September 2015, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Clyde but a message could not be left on his mobile phone. An email was sent to Mr Clyde referring him to the 7 September 2015 correspondence previously sent to him.

[6] On 22 September 2015, the Commission telephoned Mr Clyde who advised he had been moving house and had no internet access or access to his emails. Mr Clyde advised he still wished to pursue the application. Mr Clyde provided his new home address details and the Commission mailed him the application that day for completion.

[7] On 29 September 2015, the Commission attempted to call Mr Clyde and a message was left requesting him to contact the Commission.

[8] On 30 September 2015, the Commission telephoned Mr Clyde and a message was left advising if he did not contact the Commission that day, his application would be dismissed.

[9] On 8 October 2015, the Commission again telephoned Mr Clyde and a message was left requesting him to contact the Commission.

[10] Mr Clyde has not contacted the Commission or provided the necessary details as requested.

[11] 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.

[12] In these circumstances, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the Act.

[13] Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Michael Clyde versus the Respondent involved an application for relief from unfair dismissal. The applicant, Michael Clyde, sought relief from a dismissal he considered unfair, contending that the dismissal breached certain provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission.

The legal issues that the Commission was required to address included whether the dismissal was indeed unfair, and if so, whether any specific remedies should be ordered. Central to this was the interpretation of the Fair Work Act and its provisions concerning the validity and fairness of the dismissal. The Commission had to consider the evidence provided by both parties and assess whether the dismissal complied with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act.

In reaching its decision, the Commission examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It considered whether the dismissal was justified under the circumstances, whether the employer followed the correct procedures, and whether there were any mitigating factors. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was fair and did not breach any provisions of the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the application for relief from unfair dismissal was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission found no grounds to support the applicant's claim and ordered that the application for relief from unfair dismissal be dismissed. The Commission also ordered the applicant to pay the Respondent’s costs of the application.

Michael Clyde v Respondent

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established