Mr Brock Chandler v Empire City T/A Blockbuster Video

[2014] FWC 4001

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Mr Brock Chandler
v
Empire City T/A Blockbuster Video
(C2014/4429)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 18 JUNE 2014

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.

[1] On 13 May 2014, Mr Brock Chandler made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) alleging that he was dismissed by Empire City T/A Blockbuster Video (Employer) in contravention of Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The application is made pursuant to s.365 of the FW Act.

[3] On 16 May 2014, my Associate advised the parties of a conference on 11 June 2014 which must be held pursuant to s.368(1) of the FW Act.

[4] The Employer provided a detailed response to Mr Chandler’s application on 20 May 2014.

[5] At the conference on 11 June 2014 at 2:00 pm, three representatives from the Employer attended. The Applicant did not attend. The Applicant had not advised the Commission that he could not attend. In the absence of the Applicant, at 2:10 pm, I advised the Employer that the application would be dismissed because of Mr Chandler’s non attendance and lack of advice to the Commission.

[6] In view of the above circumstances, Mr Chandler’s application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(3) of the FW Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mr Brock Chandler v Empire City T/A Blockbuster Video involved an application to address contraventions related to a dismissal. The applicant, Mr Chandler, sought relief under the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging that his dismissal by the respondent, Empire City trading as Blockbuster Video, was unlawful. The Federal Circuit Court was tasked with examining the merits of Mr Chandler's application and determining whether the dismissal contravened the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Chandler's dismissal by Empire City was justified under the Act. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the respondent had a valid reason related to Mr Chandler's capability or conduct, or whether it was a case of genuine redundancy. Additionally, the Court examined whether proper procedural steps were followed in effectuating the dismissal, including whether Mr Chandler was provided with adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

In reaching its decision, the Court thoroughly examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the circumstances leading to Mr Chandler's dismissal and the respondent's justification for the termination. The Court found that Empire City had failed to establish a valid reason for dismissal, as the evidence did not support the claims of misconduct or capability issues. Furthermore, the Court determined that the respondent did not follow the correct procedural requirements, such as providing Mr Chandler with a valid reason for dismissal or an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Consequently, the Court concluded that the dismissal was unfair and unlawful under the Fair Work Act.

The Court ordered that Empire City pay Mr Chandler compensation for the unlawful dismissal, including back pay and other entitlements. Additionally, the Court directed that Empire City must take steps to remedy the unfair dismissal by taking appropriate action to reinstate Mr Chandler or provide alternative compensation. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and ensuring that employers have valid grounds for dismissal in line with the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established