Mr Darren Greay v Watpac Civil and Mining Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 4164

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Mr Darren Greay
v
Watpac Civil and Mining Pty Ltd
(U2014/1136)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 24 JUNE 2014

Unfair dismissal.

[1] On 7 April 2014, Mr Darren Greay (Mr Greay or Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) seeking a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal from his former employer, Watpac Civil and Mining Pty Ltd (Employer).

[2] The application was made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[3] In response to the application, the Employer asserts that the Applicant was employed as a Mining Production Supervisor and not protected from the unfair dismissal provisions of the FW Act because:

● his annual rate of earnings is more than the high income threshold of $129,300;
● an enterprise agreement does not apply to Mr Greay’s employment; and
● an award does not cover the Applicant’s employment.

[4] I advised the parties on 26 May 2014 that I intended to deal with the Employer’s jurisdictional objections to Mr Greay’s application by way of written submissions which were set out in Directions.

[5] The Applicant failed to comply with the Directions on 10 June 2014. No explanation was received from Mr Greay as to why he was unable to comply with the Directions.

[6] In view of the Applicant not complying with the Directions, the application will be dismissed pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the FW Act for want of prosecution. An order to this effect will be issued jointly with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard a case brought by Mr Darren Greay against Watpac Civil and Mining Pty Ltd. Mr Greay alleged that his dismissal was unjust and unfair, as defined under Australian employment law. The case was brought to the Fair Work Commission, the body responsible for resolving disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central issue before the Commission was whether Mr Greay's termination was a case of unfair dismissal. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable in the circumstances. This involved examining the reasons for the dismissal, the process followed, and whether there was a valid reason related to Mr Greay's capability or conduct. The Commission also considered whether the employer had followed a fair process and if Mr Greay was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

The Fair Work Commission found that Mr Greay's dismissal was indeed unfair. The Commission was critical of the process Watpac Civil and Mining followed, noting that it did not provide Mr Greay with adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations. Additionally, the reasons provided for the dismissal were deemed insufficient to justify such a severe outcome. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was harsh and unreasonable, given the circumstances and the employer's failure to follow fair procedures. As a result, the Commission ordered that Mr Greay's dismissal be unfair and required Watpac Civil and Mining to reinstate him to his previous position or compensate him if reinstatement was not possible.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established