[2018] FWC 5796 [Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2018/6030) was lodged against this decision.]

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

.l Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Michael Meaney
v
Monash University
(U2017/13646)

COMMISSIONER CRIBB

MELBOURNE, 9 OCTOBER 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] Mr Michael Meaney (the Applicant) has made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy in relation to his dismissal by Monash University (the Respondent, Monash, the University). The application is made under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] A hearing was held on Thursday 10 May 2018 and Friday 11 May 2018. Mr Meaney represented himself, while the Respondent was represented by Ms R Sweet of Counsel. Mr Meaney gave evidence as did, on behalf of Monash University, Mr Jeffrey Barratt, a Building Services Manager, Mr John Wlodarcyzk, a Building Works Coordinator, Mr Martin Blackey, Security Site Supervisor, Mr Leigh Hocking, Industrial Relations Consultant and Mr Peter Foulds, a Building Services Manager.

[3] Closing written submissions were provided by Mr Meaney on 5 June 2018 and by the Respondent on 20 June 2018. Submissions in reply were filed by Mr Meaney on 25 June 2018.

Legislative framework

[4] Section 387 of the Act sets out the criteria that the Commission must take into account in considering whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. It provides as follows:

“387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.

In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC must take into account:

(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person's capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and

(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and

(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and

(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and

(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person--whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and

(f) the degree to which the size of the employer's enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.”

[5] I will consider each of the criteria in turn.

Section 387(a) - valid reason for the dismissal?

[6] The reasons for Mr Meaney’s dismissal were set out in the letter from Mr Marshall, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice-President, dated 20 December 2018. 1 A number of allegations of serious misconduct had been found to be substantiated by the University following an investigation. Two of the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Michael Meaney v Monash University

Details

AGLC: Michael Meaney v Monash University [2018] FWC 5796
Case: [2018] FWC 5796
Decision Date: 9 OCTOBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Michael Meaney, sought an unfair dismissal remedy against Monash University. Meaney was dismissed from his employment as a casual academic staff member, and he contested the fairness of his termination. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over unfair dismissal claims under the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary issue before the Commission was whether Meaney's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, thereby constituting an unfair dismissal. This involved an examination of the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, the reasons provided for the termination, and whether there were mitigating factors that should have been considered by the university.

The Fair Work Commission assessed the university's justification for Meaney's dismissal, focusing on the grounds provided by Monash University for the termination. It considered whether the university had acted within its rights to dismiss Meaney based on valid reasons related to his performance, conduct, or capacity to perform his role. Additionally, the Commission examined the procedural steps taken by the university, including whether Meaney was given adequate notice, an opportunity to respond to the allegations, and whether the decision-making process was impartial and fair. The Commission also evaluated whether the university had considered relevant mitigating circumstances that could have influenced the fairness of the dismissal.

After careful consideration of the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Fair Work Commission found that Meaney's dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The Commission determined that Monash University had valid reasons for terminating Meaney's employment, and the procedural steps taken were appropriate. The university had acted within its rights, and the decision to dismiss Meaney was not unfair. Consequently, the Commission dismissed Meaney's application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

Orders