Mr Leigh Moiler v Cowra Meat Processors Pty Limited - [2025] FWC 2793

[2025] FWC 2793

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Leigh Moiler
v

Cowra Meat Processors Pty Limited

(U2025/4135)

COMMISSIONER WALKADEN

SYDNEY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal for reasons that include communication of absence to employer, leaving shift early without notifying supervisor, conduct towards supervisor and other employees - dismissal found to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable - reinstatement ordered

This decision determines an application commenced by Mr Leigh Moiler (the Applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) against his former employer, Cowra Meat Processors Pty Limited (CMP / the Respondent). Mr Moiler contends that he was unfairly dismissed and seeks that the Fair Work Commission (Commission) order a remedy for the unfair dismissal. The remedy sought by Mr Moiler is reinstatement, and orders to maintain continuity and lost pay.

The Respondent opposed the application and submitted that Mr Moiler’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

On 19 June 2025, the application was the subject of a hearing before me. The hearing was focused on the merits of the application and remedy. Mr Moiler was represented by Ms Cathy-May Gill. Ms Gill is an Industrial Officer with the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU). Ms Samantha Freeman, Solicitor, appeared for the Respondent with permission granted under section 592(2)(a) of the FW Act.

Mr Moiler relied upon witness material filed and served in advance of the hearing from: Ms Shay Grant (Mr Moiler’s daughter), Mr Richard Moiler (Mr Moiler’s father), Ms Jesse Young (Mr Moiler’s daughter-in-law) and Ms Irene Grant (Mr Moiler’s wife) and from Mr Moiler himself. Mr Richard Moiler, Ms Young and Ms Irene Grant were not required for cross-examination. Mr Moiler and Ms Shay Grant were cross-examined. Mr Moiler also relied upon written submissions filed and served in advance of the hearing.

The Respondent relied upon witness statements filed and served in advance of the hearing from: Mr Wayne Rue (Production Manager), Mr Allan Ryan (Beef Foreman), Ms Stephanie Taylor (Payroll Officer) and Ms Bonnie Stewart (Group HR/WHS Officer at the time of Mr Moiler’s dismissal and now Operations Manager). Each of those witnesses were cross-examined. The Respondent also relied upon written submissions filed and served in advance of the hearing.

All the evidence and submissions made by the parties has been considered.

For the reasons explained below, I have taken into account the matters set out at section 387 of the FW Act and concluded that Mr Moiler’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. I have made an order for reinstatement. I have made an order to maintain continuity. I have not yet made an order to restore lost pay. I am minded to make such an order. However, I require further material from the parties before determining the amount of any lost pay to be ordered.

Preliminary matters

The effect of section 390 of the FW…

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 Leigh Moiler v Cowra Meat Processors Pty Limited

Details

AGLC: Mr Leigh Moiler v Cowra Meat Processors Pty Limited [2025] FWC 2793
Case: [2025] FWC 2793
Decision Date: 18 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Leigh Moiler applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) for a remedy for unfair dismissal. Mr Moiler claimed that he was unfairly dismissed from his position as a meat process worker at Cowra Meat Processors Pty Limited (CMP). Mr Moiler sought reinstatement, and orders to maintain continuity and lost pay. CMP opposed the application and submitted that Mr Moiler’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Commissioner Walkaden found that Mr Moiler’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Commissioner Walkaden found that Mr Moiler was not notified of the reason for his dismissal relating to his conduct, and was not given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to his conduct. Commissioner Walkaden found that dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of Mr Moiler’s misconduct. Commissioner Walkaden found that Mr Moiler’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Commissioner Walkaden ordered Mr Moiler’s reinstatement, and ordered to maintain continuity. Commissioner Walkaden will issue further directions to obtain sufficient material to enable the Commission to determine any amount of lost pay to be ordered.

Orders