Legal Research
Cases
Mr Igor Grabovsky

Mr Igor Grabovsky

Case [2020] FWCFB 5995 8 December 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2020] FWCFB 5995

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Mr Igor Grabovsky
(C2020/2485 and C2020/5259)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MILLHOUSE
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MANSINI
COMMISSIONER HARPER-GREENWELL

MELBOURNE, 8 DECEMBER 2020

Appeal against Statement PR717969 of Deputy President Anderson at Adelaide on 31 March 2020 and Decision [2020] FWC 3164 and Order PR720259 of Deputy President Anderson at Adelaide on 19 June 2020 in matter number AB2019/601.

[1] Mr Grabovsky has applied for permission to appeal, and appeals a statement issued by Deputy President Anderson on 31 March 2020 (Statement), 1 and a decision of the Deputy President on 19 June 2020 (Decision)2 and Order of the same date.3 The Statement, Decision and Order were made in respect of Mr Grabovsky’s application for an order to stop bullying.

[2] On 12 August 2020, Mr Grabovsky sought an extended timetable for the filing of submissions and material in support of the two appeals. Mr Grabovsky submitted that the complexity of the appeals including the volume of material, his current medical condition and the impact occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic supported his request. Mr Grabovsky also sought that the hearing date be vacated, and the matter determined on the papers. 4 There being no objection and effective consent to this course, the appeal has been conducted without holding a hearing pursuant to s 607(1) of the Act. It was considered that the question of permission to appeal and the merits of the appeal could be adequately determined without the parties making oral submissions.

[3] For the reasons that follow, we have refused Mr Grabovsky’s application to recuse ourselves and reconstitute this Full Bench.

[4] In the determination of the appeals, we refuse permission to appeal in relation to the Statement, and the Decision and Order. Mr Grabovsky’s appeals are dismissed.

Procedural history

[5] Mr Grabovsky filed a stop bullying application on 21 October 2019. He named the Commission as the employer/principal. Mr Grabovsky says that he was bullied by each of the persons set out at Attachment A to the stop bullying application. Attachment A lists a number of former and current Commission Members, the General Manager and a staff member of the Commission.

[6] The procedural history to Mr Grabovsky’s stop bullying application is summarised in an earlier decision of this Full Bench in which Mr Grabovsky sought to appeal a statement and directions issued by Deputy President Anderson on 10 December 2019 (first appeal decision). 5 The 10 December 2019 statement set out the Deputy President’s provisional decision on representation, a decision concerning recusal, directions for compliance by the parties (which were subsequently set out in the directions issued separately by the Deputy President), and a decision to refuse Mr Grabovsky’s request for a postponement of the proceedings. In the first appeal decision of 20 March 2020, Mr Grabovsky was not granted permission to appeal the 10 December 2019 statement and directions.6

[7] Subsequently on 31 March 2020, the Deputy President issued a Statement setting out…

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 Igor Grabovsky

Details

AGLC: Mr Igor Grabovsky [2020] FWCFB 5995
Case: [2020] FWCFB 5995
Decision Date: 8 DECEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr. Igor Grabovsky has brought an appeal against two decisions made by the Fair Work Commission. The first is Statement PR717969, delivered by Deputy President Anderson at Adelaide on 31 March 2020, and the second is Decision [2020] FWC 3164 and Order PR720259, delivered by the same Deputy President at Adelaide on 19 June 2020. The case number is AB2019/601. The underlying dispute pertains to the dismissal of Mr. Grabovsky and the subsequent decision of the Fair Work Commission regarding the validity of that dismissal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if the Fair Work Commission's findings and decisions were appropriate. The court had to determine if the decision-making process followed due process and if the conclusions reached were supported by the evidence. Additionally, the court examined if there was any procedural unfairness in the way the dismissal was handled.

The court thoroughly reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It considered the nature of the dismissal, the reasons provided by the employer, and the responses from Mr. Grabovsky. The court found that the Deputy President's decisions were well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. It concluded that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and that the Fair Work Commission's process was fair and appropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court. The decisions of the Fair Work Commission remain in place, affirming the dismissal of Mr. Grabovsky as valid.

Orders