Mr Gary Tainui v Schneider Electric Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 8556

[2014] FWC 8556

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

Mr Gary Tainui
v
Schneider Electric Pty Ltd
(U2014/12812)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE SYDNEY, 2 DECEMBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] This decision arises from an application for an extension of time for lodgement of an application for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The relationship between Mr Tainui and the respondent ended in early February 2013. Mr Tainui lodged his application at the Fair Work Commission on 25 September 2014. The application was lodged outside the statutory time limit.

[3] When determining this application I had before me the Application for Unfair Dismissal lodged by Mr Tainui. His explanation for delay provided in the application is set out below:

“1.4 Disbelief about the way I was treated at Schneiders Employment by managers sub managers and workers alike as detailed in my documents.

I was for some time while employed by schneiders electric Brisbane in denial about what was happening regarding my employment and treatment at the eagle farm warehouse in Brisbane. After all these were my peers who were tasked with providing me with a ‘fair’ and just working environment.

Also unprepared for a backlash from social media of a very wicked and malicious hate campaign that targeted me in Brisbane 2011 to 2014 that affected my everyday behaviour stunting my decision making changing my self-belief and promoting procrastination ultimately leading to the loss of my job and housing in Brisbane early and mid 2013.

I believe the above were causes in why it has taken me this long to finally realize that my dismissal from employ at schneiders electric may have been unfair.”

[4] I wrote to him on 2 October 2014 outlining the matters I was required to consider by the Act and asked him to provide a statement addressing these matters within 14 days. Mr Tainui provided an extensive statement on 20 October 2014. His explanation for the delay contained in that statement is set out hereunder.

“A noose of hate over a period of two and a half years closed on me and on the following Monday being around the first week of February 2013 Polly from Trojan rang with the bad news. She simply stated ‘Gary I regret to inform you you are no longer required at Schneiders’ I was devastated and dumbfounded convincing myself that everything was my fault I became entangled in confusion over the situation and a grim reality. I tried to apply for other jobs but never received a placement at eight other jobs after feb 2013. We lapsed on our loan repayments lost our rental home and I lost my dignity. In the closing months of our stay in Brisbane me and my partner were constantly arguing about finances and we nearly fell of (sic) the deep end. The stress and mental anguish became too much and we had to give back our home to Lamonds real estate after 5 years of renting in one location and my partner had to hand in her notice at her Brisbane job. We eventually moved back to NZ.”

[5] I issued an Order 1 refusing Mr Tainui’s application for an extension of time and dismissed his application on 18 November 2014.

[6] The relevant legislative framework for the exercise of the Fair Work Commission’s discretion in relation to applications of this kind is set out below:

394 Application for unfair dismissal remedy
...
(3) The FWC may allow a further period for the application to be made by a person under subsection (1) if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:

(a) the reason for the delay; and
(b) whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect; and
(c) any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal; and
(d) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
(e) the merits of the application; and
(f) fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position.

[7] The meaning of “exceptional circumstances” was considered in Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd[2011] FWAFB 975 where the Full Bench said:

“[10]It is convenient to deal first with the meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances” in s.366(2). In Cheval Properties Pty Ltd v Smithers a Full Bench of FWA considered the meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances” in s.394(3) and held:

“[5] The word “exceptional” is relevantly defined in The Macquarie Dictionary as “forming an exception or unusual instance; unusual; extraordinary.” We can apprehend no reason for giving the word a meaning other than its ordinary meaning for the purposes of s.394(3) of the FW Act.”

[11] Given that s.366(2) is in relevantly identical terms to s.394(3), this statement of principle is equally applicable to s.366(2).
[12] The ordinary meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances” was considered by Rares J in Ho v Professional Services Review Committee No 295 a case involving in s.106KA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth). His Honour observed:

“23. I am of opinion that the expression ‘exceptional circumstances’ requires consideration of all the circumstances. In Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372 at 379 Brennan and Dawson JJ considered a statutory provision which entitled either a parole board or a court to specify a shorter non-parole period than that required under another section only if it determined that the circumstances justified that course. They said of the appellant’s circumstances:

‘Although no one of these factors was exceptional, in combination they may reasonably be regarded as amounting to exceptional circumstances.’

24. Brennan and Dawson JJ held that the failure in that case to evaluate the relevant circumstances in combination was a failure to consider matters which were relevant to the exercise of the discretion under the section (167 CLR at 379). Deane J, (with whom Gaudron and McHugh JJ expressed their concurrence on this point, albeit that they were dissenting) explained that the power under consideration allowed departure from the norm only in the exceptional or special case where the circumstances justified it (167 CLR at 383, 397).
25. And, in Baker v The Queen (2004) 223 CLR 513 at 573 [173] Callinan J referred with approval to what Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ had said in R v Kelly (Edward) [2000] QB 198 at 208, namely:

‘We must construe "exceptional" as an ordinary, familiar English adjective, and not as a term of art. It describes a circumstance which is such as to form an exception, which is out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon. To be exceptional a circumstance need not be unique, or unprecedented, or very rare; but it cannot be one that is regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered.’

26. Exceptional circumstances within the meaning of s 106KA(2) can include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together are seen as exceptional. Thus, the sun and moon appear in the sky everyday and there is nothing exceptional about seeing them both simultaneously during day time. But an eclipse, whether lunar or solar, is exceptional, even though it can be predicted, because it is outside the usual course of events.
27. It is not correct to construe ‘exceptional circumstances’ as being only some unexpected occurrence, although frequently it will be. Nor is it correct to construe the plural ‘circumstances’ as if it were only a singular occurrence, even though it can be a one off situation. The ordinary and natural meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in s 106KA(2) includes a combination of factors which, when viewed together, may reasonably be seen as producing a situation which is out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon. And, the section is directed to the circumstances of the actual practitioner, not a hypothetical being, when he or she initiates or renders the services.”

[13] In summary, the expression “exceptional circumstances” has its ordinary meaning and requires consideration of all the circumstances. To be exceptional, circumstances must be out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon but need not be unique, or unprecedented, or very rare. Circumstances will not be exceptional if they are regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered. Exceptional circumstances can include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together are seen as exceptional. It is not correct to construe “exceptional circumstances” as being only some unexpected occurrence, although frequently it will be. Nor is it correct to construe the plural “circumstances” as if it were only a singular occurrence, even though it can be a one off situation. The ordinary and natural meaning of “exceptional circumstances” includes a combination of factors which, when viewed together, may reasonably be seen as producing a situation which is out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon.” [Endnotes not reproduced]

[8] For exceptional circumstances to arise as contemplated by s394 of the Act, it is not necessary that the applicant for that extension of time be overtaken by a catastrophic event. Reasons for delay in the category of extreme events are not necessary to meet the test. All of the factors outlined in s394 (3) must be considered and weighed when deciding whether or not exceptional circumstances, circumstances sufficient to support an exception, exist.

[9] I considered the various criteria to which my attention is directed by s.394 (3) of the Act.

reason for the delay-s.394(3)(a)

[10] Mr Tainui’s explanation for delay did not provide any reason to grant an exception to the statutory time limit. He went to New Zealand and attended to other matters. He has now returned and wishes to prosecute his application.

whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect-s.394(3)(b)

[11] Mr Tainui became aware of the end of his relationship with the respondent in February 2013.

any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal-s.394(3)(c)

[12] Mr Tainui disputed his dismissal by lodging this application.

prejudice to the employer-s.394(3)(d)

[13] I was satisfied that there would be no greater prejudice to the respondent caused by Mr Tainui’s application being listed now than there would have been had it been lodged in time. Prejudice to the respondent was a neutral consideration.

the merits of the application-s.394(3)(e)

[14] Merit was a neutral issue in my consideration of this application.

fairness as between Mr Tainui and other persons in a similar position-S.394(3)(f)

[15] There was no issue of fairness in relation to any other person in a similar position.

[16] Having considered all of the matters to which my attention is directed by the Act I was not satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances which would warrant my granting an exception to the statutory time limit and on that basis dismissed the application. Mr Tainui’s circumstances were not out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

 1   PR557899

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR558357>