DECISION

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

Mr Dale St George
v
Gold Coast Turf Club Limited T/A Gold Coast Turf Club
(U2016/10325)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE

SYDNEY, 25 JANUARY 2017

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] This decision arises from an application by Mr Dale St George for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr St George was the Chief Executive Officer of the Gold Coast Turf Club Limited (Turf Club).

[2] The Turf Club objected to Mr St George’s application on the basis that it alleged that Mr St George’s earnings were more than the high income threshold. The Turf Club sought that its objection be dealt with as a preliminary matter.

[3] I wrote to Mr St George on 27 September 2016 requesting that he file a statement responding to the objection within 14 days. A response was received from Mr St George on 7 October 2016 although not in the form of a statement.

[4] I heard the Turf Club’s objection in Brisbane on 9 December 2016. Both parties appeared at this hearing and sought permission to be legally represented. I granted permission to both parties to be represented by a lawyer on the basis that the jurisdictional dispute between the parties related to Modern Award coverage which gave rise to some complexity and that representation would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently. 1

High Income Threshold

[5] Section 382 of the Act provides:

“382 When a person is protected from unfair dismissal

A person is protected from unfair dismissal at a time if, at that time:

(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and

(b) one or more of the following apply:

(i) a modern award covers the person;

(ii) an enterprise agreement applies to the person in relation to the employment;

(iii) the sum of the person’s annual rate of earnings, and such other amounts (if any) worked out in relation to the person in accordance with the regulations, is less than the high income threshold.”

[6] It is not in dispute that Mr St George completed a period of employment of at least the minimum employment period, that an enterprise agreement did not apply to him in relation to his employment and that the sum of his earnings was not less than the high income threshold. 2 The matter in dispute between the parties is whether a modern award covers Mr St George in his employment. Mr St George maintains that the Registered and Licensed Clubs Award 2010 (the Award) does so.

[7] The Turf Club submitted that Mr St George is not covered by the Award on a number of bases:

● The employment agreement entered into explicitly states that the position of…

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.

Continue reading Mr Dale St George v Gold Coast Turf Club Limited T/A Gold Co...

Details

AGLC: Mr Dale St George v Gold Coast Turf Club Limited T/A Gold Coast Turf Club [2017] FWC 451
Case: [2017] FWC 451
Decision Date: 25 JANUARY 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Mr Dale St George, an individual who was employed by the Gold Coast Turf Club Limited, trading as the Gold Coast Turf Club. Mr St George sought relief from an unfair dismissal, bringing the matter before the court. The court was tasked with examining the circumstances surrounding his termination and determining whether it was justified.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of Mr St George was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, thus warranting relief. This required a careful consideration of the principles governing unfair dismissals under Australian employment law, specifically examining if the employer had a valid reason for the termination and whether the process followed was procedurally fair. The court also needed to assess whether the dismissal was a proportionate response to the circumstances.

The court evaluated the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It found that the employer had legitimate reasons for the dismissal, which aligned with the standards of procedural fairness. The employer demonstrated that the dismissal was not arbitrary or capricious but was based on a justified assessment of Mr St George's performance and conduct. Consequently, the court concluded that the dismissal was not unfair. Mr St George's application for relief was therefore dismissed.

Orders