Michael Friday v Leaning Tree Steiner School Incorporated

[2025] FWC 1085

[2025] FWC 1085

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Michael Friday
v

Leaning Tree Steiner School Incorporated

(U2024/11981)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'KEEFFE PERTH, 16 APRIL 2025

Dismissal found to be unfair - quantum of remedy determined

1. On 5 October 2024, Mr Michael Friday (the Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for a remedy, alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with Leaning Tree Steiner School Inc. (the Respondent). On 21 February 2025 I handed down my decision in that matter. The case citation is [2025] FWC 537 and in the decision, I found that Mr Friday had been unfairly dismissed.  However, I determined that reinstatement was inappropriate and so proposed to award compensation.

1. As there was insufficient material provided at the substantive hearing, I directed the parties to make written submissions on the issue of compensation.  As part of the submissions process the Respondent sought and was granted an order for production.  While the Applicant claimed to have complied with this order to the extent of his ability, the Respondent was not satisfied with the material produced.  As such, the Respondent submitted that the matter should proceed to a hearing.  I granted this request and the issue of remedy was heard on 8 April 2025.

Compensation

1. The first step in calculating the compensation to be paid to the Applicant is to determine the compensation cap for the Applicant.  The method for calculating the amount to be compared to half of the high-income threshold is set out in s.392(6) of the Act as follows:

“(6) [Method for calculating total amount]

The amount is the total of the following amounts:
(a) the total amount of remuneration:

(i) received by the person; or

(ii) to which the person was entitled;

(whichever is higher) for any period of employment with the employer during the 26 weeks immediately before the dismissal;”

1. The Applicant submitted that the figure should be $80,583.28.  The Respondent submitted that the figure should be $72,272.00 based on the Applicant’s gross annual salary of $144,544.00. While the Applicant did not provide a basis for his amount, I have assumed that it is the gross salary plus superannuation.  While I will deal with superannuation as part of the order, for the purposes of calculating the cap I will only deal with the Applicant’s gross salary and as such I determine that the total amount of remuneration is $72,272.00.  As this amount is less than half of the high-income threshold – being an amount of $87,500.00 – the compensation cap is $72,272.00.

1. In assessing compensation, the Commission is required, by s 392(2) of the Act, to take into account all of the circumstances of the case, including the specific matters identified in paragraphs (a)-(g) as follows:

(a) the effect of the order on the viability of the employer’s enterprise; and
           (b) the length of the person’s service with the employer;…