DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal (consent arbitration)

Mr Dalton Crawford
v
A. Halid & J. Memedovski T/A Goodys Charcoal Chicken
(C2017/538)

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 6 APRIL 2017

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – consent arbitration.

[1] A certificate confirming that the matter was not able to be resolved through conciliation at the conference convened by the Fair Work Commission was issued on 16 January 2016. The parties agreed to arbitration within 14 days.

[2] Mr Dalton Crawford made an application under Section 369 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for the Fair Work Commission to deal with a general protections dismissal related dispute. Mr Dalton Crawford alleged that A. Halid & Memedovski T/A Goodys Charcoal Chicken (Goodys) had dismissed him because he exercised his workplace right to challenge the underpayment of his wages.

[3] A conference was conducted by the Fair Work Commission but the parties were unable to reach an agreement and a certificate was issued under Section 368(3)(a) of the Act.

[4] Within fourteen days of the issue of the certificate the parties gave notice under Section 369(1)(b) by using the appropriate forms that they had reached an agreement for the Commission to deal with the dispute by arbitration.

[5] The matters to be decided:

1. Did Mr Crawford exercise a workplace right? (Section 341)

2. Did Goodys take adverse action against Mr Crawford? (Section 342)

3. Did Goodys take the adverse action because of a prohibited reason or reasons that included that reason? (Section 340)

Background

[6] The parties agree and I am satisfied that Mr Crawford was employed by Goodys on a casual basis from 14 March 2016 until his dismissal on 27 September 2016. I am satisfied from the uncontested evidence of Mr Crawford that he worked at least one regular shift throughout this period and that shift was 5 hours on a Saturday. In addition Mr Crawford worked up to two additional shifts of between 3 and 5 hours in some weeks as required by the employer. The parties agree and I am satisfied that Mr Crawford was dismissed at the initiative of the employer on 27 September 2016. In response to a request from Mr Crawford’s mother requesting advice as to further work Ms Memedovski replied by text message that “Dalton no longer works for us and I don’t need to send any info about me… its my day off and I need to rest”.

[7] I am satisfied by the uncontested evidence of Mr Crawford and Ms Crawford that on 15 September 2016 Ms Crawford raised a complaint with Ms Memedovski about why Mr Crawford was being paid less than the minimum wage for a 16 year old casual worker under the Fast Food Industry Award 2010. I also accept that on 17 September 2016 Ms Memedovski told Mr Crawford that the pay issue was none of his mother’s business and denied…

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 Dalton Crawford v A Halid & J. Memedovski T/A Goodys Char...

Details

AGLC: Mr Dalton Crawford v A Halid & J. Memedovski T/A Goodys Charcoal Chicken [2017] FWC 1937
Case: [2017] FWC 1937
Decision Date: 6 APRIL 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Mr Dalton Crawford against A Halid and J. Memedovski trading as Goodys Charcoal Chicken, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with addressing an application related to contraventions involving dismissal. Mr Crawford sought redress for alleged unfair dismissal and other contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose from Mr Crawford's employment with Goodys Charcoal Chicken, where he claimed that he was dismissed without just cause or reason, and that his employer failed to adhere to the requisite legal standards during the termination process. The case was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over such employment-related disputes under Australian labour law.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether Mr Crawford's dismissal was indeed unfair and whether his employer had contravened specific provisions of the Fair Work Act. This required a detailed examination of the evidence and circumstances surrounding the termination of Mr Crawford's employment. The Commission had to consider whether the dismissal was justified on the grounds of misconduct or capability, whether the employer followed proper procedures, and whether the dismissal was procedurally fair. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine if there were any other contraventions of the Act that warranted specific remedies.

The Fair Work Commission meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by both parties, including testimonies, documentation, and any other relevant materials. The Commission found that Mr Crawford's dismissal was not supported by valid reasons and that the process did not comply with the requisite legal standards. As a result, the Commission ruled in favour of Mr Crawford, finding that his dismissal was indeed unfair. The Commission also determined that the employer had contravened the Act by not following the correct procedures and failing to provide a valid reason for the dismissal. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Mr Crawford to his former position and to compensate him for the period of lost earnings. Furthermore, the employer was required to take specific steps to rectify the contraventions and ensure compliance with the Act in the future.

Orders