Mr Jeremy Hazell v Heavy Mobile Equipment Repair

[2014] FWC 4820

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Mr Jeremy Hazell
v
Heavy Mobile Equipment Repair
(U2014/7865)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 18 JULY 2014

Unfair dismissal.

[1] On 13 June 2014, Mr Jeremy Hazell (Mr Hazell or Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) seeking a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal from his former employer, Heavy Mobile Equipment Repairs Pty Ltd (Employer).

[2] The application was made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[3] For the Commission to have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, it is necessary for the application to be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect, pursuant to paragraph 394(2) of the FW Act.

[4] Mr Hazell has not made the application within 21 days after the dismissal took effect. However, the Commission can allow for a further period for the application to be made (that is, 13 June 2014), if it 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

(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.

[5] On 19 June 2014, I issued Directions to determine whether there were exceptional circumstances to allow the application to be filed outside the 21 days taking into account the criteria in paragraph [4] above.

[6] Mr Hazell did not comply with the Directions on 4 July 2014. The Applicant has not communicated or advised the Commission why he was unable to comply with the Directions.

[7] On 16 July 2014, I received an application from the Employer that Mr Hazell’s application be dismissed pursuant to paragraph 399A(1)(b) of the FW Act for non compliance with the Commission’s directions.

[8] For the above reasons, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.399A of the FW Act. An Order to this effect is issued jointly with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Jeremy Hazell, a former employee of Heavy Mobile Equipment Repair, brought an action against his former employer seeking compensation for unfair dismissal. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was indeed unfair. The legal issues before the court involved whether the dismissal was for a valid reason related to Mr Hazell's performance or conduct, and if the employer followed a fair process in making the decision to terminate his employment.

The court examined whether Mr Hazell's dismissal was justified by his capability or conduct, as stipulated by the Fair Work Act 2009. Additionally, it considered whether the employer adhered to procedural fairness, including providing Mr Hazell with an opportunity to respond to any allegations against him. The evidence presented included Mr Hazell's employment history, the circumstances leading to his dismissal, and the employer's handling of the dismissal process. The court also took into account the employer's obligations under the Act to provide a safe work environment and the employer's conduct in managing workplace issues.

After reviewing the evidence and applying relevant legal principles, the court concluded that the dismissal was not unfair. It found that the employer had valid reasons related to Mr Hazell's performance and conduct, and that the dismissal process was procedurally fair. The court held that the employer had adequately demonstrated that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable in the circumstances. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr Hazell's claim for unfair dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established