Mr Ashley Wittorff v MLG Oz Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 8326

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Mr Ashley Wittorff
v
MLG Oz Pty Ltd
(U2014/8688)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 27 NOVEMBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 8 August 2014, Mr Ashley Wittorff (Mr Wittorff or Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) seeking a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal from his former employer, MLG Oz Pty Ltd (Employer).

[2] The application was made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[3] The application was unable to be resolved at conciliation and referred to me for arbitration on 10 September 2014.

[4] On 12 September 2014, I issued Directions for an arbitral hearing. At the conclusion of the Directions, in bolding, are the words:

“The Applicant and Employer must comply with these directions.”

[5] The parties were required to file and serve documents to which they intended to rely upon, in accordance with the Directions by 13 October 2014. The Employer and Applicant complied with the direction on 22 October 2014 and 24 October 2014 respectively.

[6] On 6 November 2014, the Applicant’s representative provided a notice ceasing to act on behalf of Mr Wittorf.

[7] The Applicant was required, by 10 November 2014, to provide his Statement of Facts, witness statements and any other documentary material to be relied upon. The Applicant did not comply with the direction.

[8] On 20 November 2014, the Employer made an application to the Commission (and copied to the Applicant) pursuant to s.399A of the FW Act, to dismiss the application because the Applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with a direction relating to the application. A copy of the application was forwarded to the Applicant. No response to the application was received from the Applicant.

[9] The Applicant has not communicated with the Commission as to why he has been unable to comply with the Commission’s Directions in relation to his application.

[10] For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the Applicant has unreasonably failed to comply with the Commission’s directions and that the application should be dismissed pursuant to s.399A(1) of the FW Act. An order to this effect is issued jointly with this decision and reasons for decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mr Ashley Wittorff versus MLG Oz Pty Ltd, the applicant sought relief from an unfair dismissal under section 384 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Mr Wittorff was employed by MLG Oz as a marketing executive and claimed that his dismissal was unjust, asserting that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations of misconduct. The employer, MLG Oz, argued that the dismissal was procedurally fair and based on valid reasons, including a history of unsatisfactory performance and breaches of company policy.

The court was required to determine whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and whether it was a case of genuine redundancy or a case of unfair dismissal. The legal issues centred on the fairness of the dismissal process and the substantive reasons for the dismissal. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether Mr Wittorff's dismissal was justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly whether the employer followed the correct procedures and whether the reasons for dismissal were fair and reasonable.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the employer did not follow the correct procedural steps and that the dismissal was not based on valid reasons. The court held that the employer failed to provide Mr Wittorff with adequate warnings and opportunities to improve his performance. Additionally, the employer did not adequately investigate the allegations before proceeding with the dismissal. Consequently, the court ruled that the dismissal was unfair and ordered that Mr Wittorff be reinstated to his former position with back pay.

Mr Ashley Wittorff v MLG Oz Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established