DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Mietek Najda
v
Fuji Elevators Australia Pty Ltd
(U2020/13563)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 1 MARCH 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – binding settlement agreement reached –application dismissed pursuant to s.587.

[1] Mr Mietek Najda (the Applicant) has applied for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

[2] I have determined to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587(1)(c), on account of there being a binding settlement agreement which extinguishes the original claim such that it has no reasonable prospects of success. The reasons for this decision follow.

Background

[3] The application was filed in the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 13 October 2020.

[4] The matter was listed for a Member Assisted Conciliation before me on 26 November 2020. At the Member Assisted Conciliation the parties agreed to resolve the matter on the basis of a confidential settlement.

[5] The Respondent provides signed Terms of Settlement to the Commission and to the Applicant on 30 November 2020. The Applicant, through his representative the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia provided signed Terms of Settlement to the Commission and the Respondent on 4 December 2020.

[6] Following receipt of the signed Terms of Settlement from both parties I set aside the filing Directions and vacated the hearing dates.

[7] Given the length of time since the signing of the Terms of Settlement my Chambers invited a Notice of Discontinuance from the Applicant on 14 January 2021. No response was received.

[8] A further request for a Notice of Discontinuance was sent to the Applicant on 28 January 2021. Again, no response was received.

Consideration

[9] Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:

“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

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[10] In Masters v Cameron the High Court of Australia has found a binding contract will exist:

“Where parties who have been in negotiation reach agreement upon terms of a contractual nature and also agree that the matter of their negotiation shall be dealt with by a formal contract, the case may belong to any of three cases. It may be one in which the parties have…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mietek Najda v Fuji Elevators Australia Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] FWC 878
Decision Date: 1 MARCH 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mietek Najda versus Fuji Elevators Australia Pty Ltd involved an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. Mr. Najda, an employee of Fuji Elevators, alleged unfair dismissal and sought a remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose from the termination of Mr. Najda's employment and the subsequent claim that his dismissal was unjust. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal was indeed unfair and whether Mr. Najda's claim for unfair dismissal was valid under the circumstances. The court had to determine whether the employer had just cause to terminate the employment and whether the process leading to the dismissal was fair and reasonable. Additionally, the court needed to consider the impact of a binding settlement agreement reached between the parties prior to the dismissal on the fairness and the validity of the dismissal.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that a binding settlement agreement had been reached between Mr. Najda and Fuji Elevators, which effectively resolved all claims related to the dismissal. This settlement agreement included provisions that precluded Mr. Najda from pursuing further claims, including an unfair dismissal remedy. Given the binding nature of the settlement, the court concluded that Mr. Najda's application for an unfair dismissal remedy was precluded by the terms of the settlement agreement. Therefore, the application was dismissed pursuant to section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The final orders of the court dismissed Mr. Najda's application for an unfair dismissal remedy, affirming that the binding settlement agreement reached with Fuji Elevators Australia Pty Ltd precluded such a claim. The court's decision underscored the principle that binding settlement agreements can effectively resolve disputes and preclude further claims, including those under the Fair Work Act.

Orders