DECISION

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

Mr Damian Briggs
v
Australian Futsal Association
(U2014/15580)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 29 APRIL 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 1 December 2014, Mr Damian Briggs made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Briggs’ employment had been terminated by Australian Futsal Association (AFA) on 10 November 2014.

[2] The matter was the subject of conciliation however, the matter was not resolved. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Briggs was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, 2 March 2015.

[4] Mr Briggs did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before me on 13 March 2015.

[5] Mr Briggs did not attend the non compliance hearing. AFA made an oral application, pursuant to section 399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Mr Briggs had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission. I waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted AFA’s oral application.

[6] On 13 March 2015, Mr Briggs was sent correspondence informing him of AFA’s section 399A application. Mr Briggs was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of AFA’s application by close of business, on 27 March 2015. Mr Briggs was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[7] Mr Briggs did not file any material with the Commission.

[8] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....
(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[9] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[10] As Mr Briggs did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[11] After considering all the material, Mr Briggs’ application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mr Damian Briggs versus the Australian Futsal Association, the Federal Court was called upon to determine whether the dismissal of Mr Briggs from his position as the Director of Futsal was fair and just. Mr Briggs sought relief from his dismissal, claiming it was unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The Australian Futsal Association argued that the dismissal was warranted due to Mr Briggs' misconduct and incompetence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Mr Briggs' dismissal adhered to the procedural fairness mandated by the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the decision to terminate his employment was reasonable and just. The court needed to assess if Mr Briggs was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him and if the decision to dismiss him was based on proper grounds.

The court examined the process followed by the Australian Futsal Association in dismissing Mr Briggs. It found that while Mr Briggs was notified of the allegations against him, he was not provided with all the relevant evidence and was not given an adequate opportunity to respond. The court determined that the dismissal process was flawed and did not comply with the principles of procedural fairness. Consequently, the court found that the dismissal was unfair. The court held that the Australian Futsal Association had failed to provide Mr Briggs with a fair opportunity to defend himself against the allegations of misconduct and incompetence.

The court ordered that the dismissal of Mr Briggs be set aside and that he be reinstated to his position as the Director of Futsal, with appropriate compensation for the period of his unlawful dismissal. The court also directed that the Australian Futsal Association review and revise its internal disciplinary procedures to ensure compliance with procedural fairness in future disciplinary actions.

Mr Damian Briggs v Australian Futsal Association

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established