| [2024] FWC 2236 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Mr Brett Jones
v
Machinery Moves Australia Pty Ltd
(U2024/3664)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT ROBERTS | SYDNEY, 21 AUGUST 2024 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – lack of evidence – application dismissed
On 27 March 2024 Mr. Brett Jones (Applicant) filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) against his former employer Machinery Moves Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).
The Respondent raised a number of objections to the application. They said the application was filed outside the 21-day time period prescribed by s.394(2), that the Applicant did not meet the minimum employment period under s.383 and that they were a small business employer that had complied with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code referred to in s.388[1] in relation to the termination of the Applicant’s employment.
On 25 July 2024 written directions were issued to the parties requiring that they file and serve material in relation to the objections raised by the Respondent by 1 August 2024. The matter was listed for hearing to deal with those issues on 21 August 2024.
Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent filed any material in response to the directions. On 2 August 2024 I wrote to the parties to remind them of the directions and give them a further opportunity to file material in support of their case, or to formally seek an extension of time, by no later than 4pm on that day. Nothing was received and there has been no further contact from the Applicant.
There was no attendance by either party at the hearing on 21 August 2024.
In the absence of any evidence in support of the application, I cannot be satisfied that any remedy for unfair dismissal is available to the Applicant.
The application is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] See also s.385(c).
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR778522>
- AGLC
- Mr Brett Jones v Machinery Moves Australia Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 2236
- Case
- [2024] FWC 2236
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Mr Jones' application for an unfair dismissal remedy was valid and supported by sufficient evidence. The Respondent argued that the application was defective on several grounds, including non-compliance with the statutory time limit and the minimum employment period. Furthermore, the Respondent claimed adherence to the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, which could potentially negate any claim of unfair dismissal. Given the absence of any submissions or evidence from Mr Jones, the Commission was left to consider whether it could be satisfied that any remedy for unfair dismissal was available to him.
In its decision, the Commission noted that Mr Jones did not provide any evidence to support his application for an unfair dismissal remedy. As a result, the Deputy President was unable to conclude that any remedy was available to Mr Jones. The Commission concluded that the application should be dismissed due to the lack of evidence and the procedural failures identified by the Respondent. Consequently, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.
There being no further orders to make, the Commission concluded its decision by formally dismissing the application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.