Mr Larl Zada v WPH Pty Ltd T/A WPH Plant Hire Crushing Services

[2014] FWC 5278

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Mr Larl Zada
v
WPH Pty Ltd T/A WPH Plant Hire Crushing Services
(U2014/6398)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 4 AUGUST 2014

Unfair dismissal.

[1] On 9 April 2014, Mr Larl Zada (Mr Zada or Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission seeking a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal from his former employer, WPH Pty Ltd T/A WPH Plant Hire Crushing Services (Employer).

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

[3] In response to the application, the Employer asserts that the Applicant is not protected from unfair dismissal of the FW Act because:

his annual rate of earnings is more than the high income threshold of $129,300;

an enterprise agreement does not apply to Mr Zada’s employment; and

a modern award does not cover the Applicant’s employment.

[4] On 20 June 2014, I issued Directions to both parties advising that I intended to resolve the Employer’s jurisdictional questions by way of written submissions.

[5] The Applicant failed to provide any submissions.

[6] Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 587(3)(a) of the FW Act, the application is dismissed for want of prosecution. 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 Larl Zada, the applicant, sought review of a decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) which found that he was not unfairly dismissed from his employment with WPH Pty Ltd T/A WPH Plant Hire Crushing Services, the respondent. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Mr Zada contended that his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. He argued that the employer's decision to terminate him was not based on valid reasons and that the employer failed to follow proper procedures. The respondent maintained that the dismissal was justified due to misconduct and that all procedural requirements were met.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and whether the employer followed proper procedures in terminating the employment. The court considered whether the employer had valid reasons for dismissing Mr Zada and whether the dismissal process was procedurally fair. The court also examined the evidence presented by both parties regarding the reasons for the dismissal and the process followed.

The court found that the employer had valid reasons to terminate Mr Zada's employment, as he was involved in misconduct. The court also determined that the employer followed proper procedures in dismissing Mr Zada. The evidence showed that the employer had conducted a proper investigation and followed the relevant policies and procedures. As a result, the court dismissed Mr Zada's application for unfair dismissal and affirmed the FWC's decision.

No further orders were made by the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established