DECISION

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

Mr Christopher Bezant
v
(U2019/2012)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BINET

PERTH, 6 MAY 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 25 February 2019, Mr Christopher Bezant (Mr Bezant) made an application (Application) to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

[2] The application form filed by Mr Bezant with FWC was incomplete. No Respondent was named and no contact details were provided on the application form. No supporting documentation accompanied the application that identified Mr Bezant’s former employer.

[3] On 26 February 2019, the FWC attempted to contact Mr Bezant by telephone to provide further details. This attempt was unsuccessful and a voice mail was left.

[4] The FWC attempted to contact Mr Bezant again by telephone on 28 February 2019 but was unsuccessful and written correspondence was sent by express post to Mr Bezant’s address advising the Application was incomplete and asking Mr Bezant to provide further details by 14 March 2019.

[5] Further attempts to contact Mr Bezant by telephone were made on 15 March 2019 and 27 March 2019. These attempts were unsuccessful and voice messages were left on both occasions.

[6] Mr Bezant did not contact the FWC or provide the necessary details as requested.

[7] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

“587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.”

[8] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that the Application was not made in accordance with the FW Act and that without identifying a respondent has no reasonable prospects of sucess. As such, the Application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act.

[9] An Order dismissing the Application [Print PR707542] will be issued with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicant, Mr Christopher Bezant, filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy against his former employer. The dispute arose from the termination of Mr Bezant’s employment by the respondent. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the termination of Mr Bezant's employment was procedurally unfair, as well as whether it constituted genuine redundancy or was a case of unfair dismissal. Mr Bezant argued that his dismissal lacked procedural fairness and was not a genuine redundancy, while the respondent maintained that the dismissal was procedurally sound and justified.

In its decision, the Commission found that the employer had not followed proper procedural steps in terminating Mr Bezant’s employment, thereby rendering the dismissal unfair. The respondent did not provide adequate evidence to substantiate the redundancy claims. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Mr Bezant, determining that the dismissal was indeed unfair. The Commission ordered the respondent to reinstate Mr Bezant to his former position and compensate him for the period of lost wages. Additionally, the respondent was directed to pay Mr Bezant’s costs associated with the proceedings.

Mr Christopher Bezant v

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established