Mr Chris Ingall v Qube Ports Pty Ltd - [2024] FWC 3605

[2024] FWC 3605

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Chris Ingall
v

Qube Ports Pty Ltd

(U2024/6871)

COMMISSIONER DURHAM

BRISBANE, 31 DECEMBER 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – breach of policy – conduct during and after disciplinary process - valid reason – dismissal not unfair – application dismissed.

On 14 April 2024, Mr Chris Ingall, a casual stevedore employed by Qube Ports Pty Ltd (Qube) was involved in a collision with an Australian Amalgamated Terminals (AAT) taxi (the Incident) during a shift at the Port of Brisbane.

Mr Ingall was stood down pending an investigation into the Incident. The following day, Mr Ingall was advised that the investigation into the Incident had been completed, and that Qube had formed the view that his conduct constituted “misconduct inconsistent with our values of integrity, reliability, inclusion and zero harm”.[1] Consequently, Mr Ingall was provided an opportunity to respond to Qube’s preliminary view that his employment should be terminated.
On 9 May 2024, Mr Ingall’s representative, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), was advised by Qube that it had finalised its investigation into the Incident and that Mr Ingall could return to work. Mr Ingall and the MUA recall that they were advised at this point that no further action would be taken, whereas Qube recall asserting that Mr Ingall could return to work whilst they further considered an appropriate disciplinary penalty.

Upon his return to work, and prior to Qube making a disciplinary outcome decision, Mr Ingall sent a number of emails to Qube employees and management which Qube submit to be “untrue, inappropriate in their tone”[2] and which they considered demonstrated a failure by Mr Ingall to take responsibility for his part in the Incident.

As a result of this conduct, Mr Ingall was again placed on unpaid suspension. Two further show cause letters were issued and having considered Mr Ingall’s responses, he was dismissed without notice on 10 June 2024.

Mr Ingall seeks reinstatement to his former position, continuity of employment and lost pay. In the alternative, he seeks compensation of six (6) months of his income.

For the reasons outlined below I find that there was a valid reason for Mr Ingall’s dismissal and further, that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. It was therefore not unfair.

Procedural Background

Following an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the matter during a case management/conciliation conference between the parties on 6 August 2024, the matter proceeded to hearing on 19 and 20 September 2024. At the hearing, Mr Ingall was represented by Mr Samuel O’Sullivan of the MUA and Qube was represented by Mr James McLean of Counsel.

Both parties filed written submissions and witness statements. Mr Ingall gave evidence in support of his application as did Mr Jason Miners, Queensland Branch Secretary of the MUA.

Mr Damien Woolford, the operator of the AAT taxi during the incident, and Mr Daniel Coulton,…

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 Chris Ingall v Qube Ports Pty Ltd 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: [2024] FWC 3605
Decision Date: 31 DECEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerns an application for an unfair dismissal remedy brought by Mr Chris Ingall against Qube Ports Pty Ltd (Qube). Mr Ingall was employed as a Supplementary Stevedore (Grade 2) at the Port of Brisbane. He was involved in a collision with an Australian Amalgamated Terminals (AAT) taxi (the Incident) during a shift at the Port of Brisbane on 14 April 2024. The collision resulted in Mr Ingall being stood down pending an investigation into the Incident. The investigation concluded that Mr Ingall’s conduct constituted “misconduct inconsistent with our values of integrity, reliability, inclusion and zero harm”. Consequently, Mr Ingall was provided an opportunity to respond to Qube’s preliminary view that his employment should be terminated. After returning to work, Mr Ingall sent a number of emails to Qube employees and management which Qube considered to be “untrue, inappropriate in their tone” and which demonstrated a failure by Mr Ingall to take responsibility for his part in the Incident. As a result of this conduct, Mr Ingall was again placed on unpaid suspension. After considering Mr Ingall’s responses to two show cause letters, Qube dismissed him without notice on 10 June 2024. Mr Ingall seeks reinstatement to his former position, continuity of employment and lost pay. In the alternative, he seeks compensation of six (6) months of his income. The Commission found that there was a valid reason for Mr Ingall’s dismissal and further, that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. It was therefore not unfair. The application was dismissed.

Orders