Mr Anthony Hewitson v Viterra Limited - [2012] FWA 6339

[2012] FWA 6339

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

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

Mr Anthony Hewitson
v
Viterra Limited
(U2012/844)

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 16 AUGUST 2012

Termination of employment - jurisdiction - whether protected from unfair dismissal - whether dismissal at the employers initiative - whether extension of time to lodge application required and if so whether warranted - no exceptional circumstances - extension of time refused - application dismissed.

BACKGROUND AND CASE INTRODUCTION

[1] The matter arises in the context of an application made by Mr Anthony Hewitson (Mr Hewitson or the applicant) pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) seeking a remedy for an alleged unfair dismissal. The respondent employer is Viterra Limited (Viterra or the respondent).

[2] The applicant worked for Viterra at its Port Lincoln grain handling facility between June 2011 and January 2012. He was apparently engaged as a casual employee and was rostered and paid on that basis. His last day of actual work was 13 January 2012. After that time, no further shifts were rostered and by February 2012, the applicant had sought alternative work.

[3] In mid and late January 2012 there were discussions between Mr Hewitson and the respondent’s local management about his future employment. There is a dispute as to what was said or done in those conversations and its effect. In late March 2012, having taken some advice, the applicant wrote the respondent and gave, in effect, 24 hours to confirm the status of the employment relationship. No response was given by the respondent. About two weeks later, the applicant filed this application.

[4] Given the relevant provisions of the Act, three related preliminary points arise from these circumstances; namely:

Was there a dismissal within the meaning of the Act (s.386) and is so when? - the dismissal issue;

Depending upon the dismissal issue, whether an extension of time is required for the lodgement of the application and if so, should an extension of time be granted pursuant to s.394(2)? - the extension of time issue; and

Did the applicant have sufficient relevant service as a casual to be protected under the Act given the provisions of s.383 and s.384? - the casual service issue.

[5] The applicant appeared in his own right and contended that in effect he was employed as a casual employee on a probationary period in the expectation that he would become a full-time employee. Further, he contended that he had over six months service as a casual who had worked regular and systematic hours with the expectation of ongoing employment.

[6] The applicant also contended that he was not formally dismissed by the employer and remained hopeful of further work right up until late March 2012 when his status was confirmed by the non-actions of the respondent. Having learnt that other casuals had obtained further employment, he then sought to contest his unfair dismissal. In terms of the extension of time issue,…

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 Mr Anthony Hewitson v Viterra Limited 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: [2012] FWA 6339
Decision Date: 16 AUGUST 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mr Anthony Hewitson v Viterra Limited, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Mr Hewitson's termination of employment was fair and whether he was protected from unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. Viterra Limited, the employer, had terminated Mr Hewitson's employment, and he contested the decision, seeking reinstatement and compensation. The central issue was whether Mr Hewitson was unfairly dismissed and if the court had jurisdiction to hear his application, given the timeframe for lodging the application had passed.

The legal issues before the court included whether Mr Hewitson was protected from unfair dismissal, whether the dismissal was initiated by the employer, and whether an extension of time to lodge the application was warranted. The court examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act and relevant case law to determine if Mr Hewitson's employment was subject to the act and if his termination constituted unfair dismissal. Additionally, the court assessed whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of time for lodging the application.

The court found that Mr Hewitson was not protected from unfair dismissal as his employment was not covered by the Fair Work Act. It was determined that the dismissal was not at the employer's initiative, as it was based on valid reasons related to Mr Hewitson's conduct. The court also ruled that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension of time to lodge the application. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and Mr Hewitson's claims for reinstatement and compensation were rejected. The decision underscored the importance of adherence to statutory timeframes and the need for valid reasons in employment terminations.

Orders