Mr David Weule, the applicant in these proceedings, has applied for an order to produce documents. I have decided to make an order but not in the terms of Mr Weule’s draft.

Background

Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd dismissed Mr Weule from his employment on 20 September 2024. Mr Weule has applied for an unfair dismissal remedy. In the course of the unfair dismissal proceedings, Mr Weule seeks an order that Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd produce the following seven categories of documents:
(a)   A copy of all documents provided to the Respondent, employees of the Respondent, or an investigator for the purposes of the investigation of the altercation between David Torcello and David Weule on 13 June 2024 (the Investigation). (Category 1)
(b)   A copy of all file notes, recordings and transcripts of interviews of witnesses or other persons as part of the Investigation. (Category 2)
(c)   A copy of any complaint(s) that instigated the Investigation. (Category 3)
(d)   A copy of all documents, including emails and file notes, created by or sent to the Respondent, employees of the Respondent or the Investigator discussing the outcome of the Investigation. (Category 4)
(e)   A copy of the final report of the Investigation. (Category 5)
(f)    Any documents related to or discussing disciplinary action taken against David Torcello in relation to the altercation on 13 June 2024. (Category 6)
(g)   A copy of any letter of resignation or other correspondence given to the Respondent by David Torcello mentioning David Weule. (Category 7).
I issued Directions on 11 December 2024, in anticipation of deciding this application. Those directions allowed the parties to file and serve submissions and affidavits, if any. I directed that the application would be determined on the papers unless any party advised of an objection to that course of action by 27 December 2024. Mr Weule’s representative indicated Mr Weule was content for the application to be decided on the papers, and Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd did not advise of any objection.

Applicable principles and legislative framework

Section 590 of the Fair Work Act 2009 gives the Commission the power to inform itself in such manner as it considers appropriate. That section sets out a non-exhaustive list of ways the Commission can inform itself. The list includes requiring a person to provide copies of documents, records, or other information, to the Commission. Rule 26 of the Fair Work Commission Rules 2024 deals with orders to produce.
The power is discretionary. An order to produce in this Commission is analogous to a subpoena or summons to produce documents in the courts. In exercising its discretion, the Commission considers the approach that the courts take to dealing with subpoenas and summons.[1] The…

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 David Weule v Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Mr David Weule v Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 120
Case: [2025] FWC 120
Decision Date: 14 JANUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mr David Weule v Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd was heard by the Fair Work Commission, with Deputy President Butler presiding over the matter. The applicant, Mr David Weule, had applied for an unfair dismissal remedy following his termination of employment by Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd on 20 September 2024. In the course of the unfair dismissal proceedings, Mr Weule sought an order for the production of several categories of documents from Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd, related to an altercation between Mr Weule and David Torcello on 13 June 2024.

The legal issues before the court centred on the principles governing the exercise of the Commission's discretion to make an order for the production of documents, and whether the documents sought by Mr Weule had apparent relevance, were described with reasonable particularity, and whether making such an order would be vexatious or an abuse of process. The court considered the submissions from both parties, with Mr Weule arguing the documents sought had apparent relevance to the issues in the proceedings and that the application was not a fishing expedition, while Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd argued the application was premature and an abuse of process.

The court found that the documents sought by Mr Weule had apparent relevance to the issues in dispute, including whether there was a valid reason for his dismissal and whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. While some of the requests were too broad, the court accepted that the categories of documents described with reasonable particularity should be included in the order. The court found that making the order would not impose an unreasonable burden on Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd, and that the application was not a fishing expedition. The court made an order for the production of documents, but not in the terms of the draft. The order is to be issued separately.

Orders