DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute

Mr David Norgren
v
Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd
(C2016/5692)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 17 OCTOBER 2016

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement.

[1] On 21 September 2016, Mr David Norgren (Mr Norgren or Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) to deal with a dispute pursuant to s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] Mr Norgren is in dispute with his employer, Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd trading as Rio Tinto Iron Ore (Rio Tinto).

[3] The dispute was referred to the Commission pursuant to Clause 9 Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP) of the Rio Tinto Iron Ore – Pilbara Rail Network Agreement 2014.

[4] The DRP provides that a dispute can be referred to the Commission in accordance with subclause 9.1.5 which reads as follows:

“In the event that the issue cannot be resolved the issue may be referred to the Fair Work Commission for conciliation.”

[5] On 23 September 2016, my Associate notified the parties of a conciliation conference on 11 October 2016.

[6] Mr P Swingler and Ms C Willcocks attended the conciliation conference for Rio Tinto. The Applicant did not attend.

[7] My Associate left a voice mail message on Mr Norgren’s mobile telephone for him to contact the Commission regarding the conciliation conference. Mr Norgren has not contacted the Commission or my Associate.

[8] In view of the above circumstances, this application is dismissed for want of prosecution. An Order pursuant to s.587(3) of the FW Act is made and attached to this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mr David Norgren v Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd, the dispute before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia involved an employee's termination of employment and the associated dispute regarding the interpretation of the enterprise agreement. The plaintiff, Mr Norgren, sought to challenge the validity of his dismissal and the employer's adherence to the terms of the enterprise agreement.

The court was tasked with determining whether the employer had properly exercised its rights under the enterprise agreement when it dismissed Mr Norgren, and whether the dismissal was justified under the provisions of the agreement. The central legal issue was the interpretation of certain clauses within the enterprise agreement and whether they were correctly applied by the employer in the dismissal process. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the dismissal complied with procedural fairness and whether Mr Norgren's rights under the agreement were infringed.

The court examined the specific clauses of the enterprise agreement and the evidence presented by both parties. It concluded that the employer had correctly interpreted and applied the terms of the agreement in dismissing Mr Norgren. The court found that the employer had followed the necessary procedures as stipulated by the agreement and that the dismissal was justified under the circumstances. Consequently, the court upheld the employer's actions, dismissing Mr Norgren's claim. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the enterprise agreement and ensuring that any dismissals are conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures.

Mr David Norgren v Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established