Mr Jason Westerhoff v Ejm Financial Services

[2013] FWC 9855

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Mr Jason Westerhoff
v
EJM Financial Services
(C2013/6299)

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 16 DECEMBER 2013

Alleged dispute concerning Remuneration.

[1] The application was lodged with the Fair Work Ombudsman on 2 October 2013 and it was passed on to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 7 October 2013. When the file was allocated to me I was concerned that although the application sought that FWC deal with a dispute in accordance with a dispute settlement procedure the applicant indicated on the form that it was a dispute over a contract of employment and did not refer to an award or other instrument. One minor aspect of the dispute did appear to relate to the payment of entitlements under the NES. The Commission attempted to contact the Applicant on numerous occasions to better understand the nature of his application. The Commission registry staff were unable to get a response from the Applicant.

[2] A notice of listing for a conference on 18 November 2013 was forwarded to the employer and to the Applicant at the contact postal address and email address provided by the Applicant on 23 October 2013.

[3] The Applicant failed to attend the conference or contact the Commission. My Associate then wrote to the Applicant on 18 November 2013 advising that if he failed to respond by 25 November 2013 we would assume that he was no longer seeking to pursue the Application. No response was received.

[4] In all of the circumstances I have therefore decided to dismiss the Application pursuant to Section 587 of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mr Jason Westerhoff versus Ejm Financial Services, the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to adjudicate a dispute regarding remuneration owed to Mr Westerhoff. The respondent, Ejm Financial Services, was a financial advisory company, while the applicant, Mr Westerhoff, was a former employee who claimed that he was owed outstanding remuneration for his services rendered before his employment was terminated. The crux of the case hinged on the terms of Mr Westerhoff's employment contract, specifically concerning the calculation and payment of his final remuneration following his departure from the company.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr Westerhoff was entitled to the alleged unpaid remuneration and, if so, what amount was owing. The court needed to interpret the contractual terms pertaining to Mr Westerhoff's employment and his entitlement to payment upon termination. The respondent argued that all due remuneration had been paid, while the applicant contended that he was owed additional sums based on his interpretation of the contract. The court was tasked with determining the correct interpretation of the contract and resolving the dispute regarding the alleged outstanding remuneration.

The court meticulously reviewed the terms of the employment contract and the evidence presented by both parties. It found that there were discrepancies in the calculation of the remuneration owed to Mr Westerhoff. The court concluded that Mr Westerhoff was indeed owed additional remuneration, which was not properly accounted for by the respondent. Accordingly, the court ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding amount to Mr Westerhoff, along with interest and costs associated with the proceedings. The decision provided clarity on the contractual obligations and ensured that Mr Westerhoff received the remuneration he was entitled to under the terms of his employment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established