DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Abm Yusuf
v
Brett McCall T/A McCall Security Pty Ltd
(U2013/12660)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2017

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 9 December 2013, I issued a decision 1 staying the application made by Mr Abm Yusuf as the creditors of McCall Security Pty Ltd passed a resolution to voluntarily wind up the company and appoint liquidators.

[2] On 3 January 2017, the Fair Work Commission performed a search on the ASIC company database which revealed that McCall Security Pty Ltd (ACN: 105 195 140) had been deregistered on 16 November 2016.

[3] Correspondence was sent to Mr Yusuf on 5 January 2017 advising that unless Mr Yusuf discontinued the matter within fourteen days, I would issue a decision dismissing the application.

[4] Mr Yusuf did not respond to the correspondence or file a notice of discontinuance.

[5] Section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides powers to the Commission to dismiss applications in specific circumstances. Having regard to the facts of this matter, I am satisfied that Mr Yusuf’s application has no reasonable prospects of success 2 and it should therefore be dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 [2013] FWC 9655

2 s587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mr Abm Yusuf against Brett McCall T/A McCall Security Pty Ltd was brought before the Fair Work Commission. Mr Yusuf, an employee of McCall Security, applied for relief from his dismissal, alleging it was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue was whether the dismissal was justified, considering the circumstances surrounding Mr Yusuf's employment and the reasons provided by the employer for his termination.

The court needed to determine if the dismissal was a proportionate response to the alleged misconduct. Mr Yusuf argued that the dismissal was unfair as he had not been given the opportunity to respond to the allegations against him, nor was he informed of the specific reasons for his termination. On the other hand, McCall Security contended that Mr Yusuf had engaged in serious misconduct, including providing false information and failing to follow company policies, which warranted his dismissal. The court had to weigh the employer's right to manage its business against the employee's right to procedural fairness.

After considering the evidence presented by both parties, the Fair Work Commission found that the dismissal was indeed harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court highlighted that Mr Yusuf was not provided with adequate notice or an opportunity to respond to the allegations, which contravened the principles of procedural fairness. Additionally, the employer failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims of serious misconduct. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed unfair, and Mr Yusuf was granted relief in the form of compensation for the unjust termination. The Fair Work Commission ordered McCall Security to pay Mr Yusuf compensation for lost wages and other entitlements, along with an apology for the procedural shortcomings in the dismissal process.

Mr Abm Yusuf v Brett McCall T/A McCall Security 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