DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections

Mr Mark Summers
v
TTEC
(C2018/4415)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT

PERTH, 2 OCTOBER 2018

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – application made within time.

[1] The Applicant Mr Mark Summers (Mr Summers) made an application (Application) to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 10 August 2018 under s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that he had been dismissed by the Respondent (TTEC) on 19 July 2018 in contravention of the general protections provisions of the Act.

[2] On 16 August 2018 the Commission wrote to Mr Summers indicating that his Application appeared to have been made outside the 21 day timeframe specified in s.366(1)(a) and advising it would be seek the consent of TTEC to progress the matter to a conciliation teleconference in the first instance.

[3] The Commission on the same date wrote to TTEC indicating the same, requesting they advise whether they consented to a conciliation teleconference or wished to proceed to a jurisdictional hearing. No response was received.

[4] On 24 August 2018, TTEC filed the Form F8A – Employer response to general protections application in which it did not raise any jurisdictional objection to the Application.

[5] The extension of time issue was listed for mention teleconference by my Chambers on 4 September 2018 and subsequently a telephone hearing on 12 September 2018. Mr Summers appeared on his own behalf, while Mr Benjamin Gee appeared with permission for TTEC.

[6] TTEC raised that the dismissal took effect on 20 July 2018 meaning the Application lodged by Mr Summers was in time. Mr Summers agreed to this point and subsequently emailed my Chambers on the following day to confirm this.

[7] For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that Mr Summers was dismissed with effect from 20 July 2018. Accordingly, it is not necessary to consider the extension of time issue. The Application will now be listed for a conference aimed at resolving the dispute.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mr Mark Summers v Ttec, Mr Summers, the applicant, sought an order from the Fair Work Commission to address contraventions related to his dismissal. The dispute arose from Mr Summers' claim that his dismissal was unjust and without proper cause, and he requested the Commission to intervene and rectify the situation. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal tasked with evaluating the merits of Mr Summers' application and determining whether the dismissal was indeed unjust.

The central legal issues the Commission had to resolve involved whether Mr Summers' application was made within the stipulated timeframe, and whether the dismissal was unjust or unlawful under the applicable employment laws. Specifically, the Commission needed to examine the procedural fairness of the dismissal process, including whether Mr Summers was given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations leading to his dismissal.

The Commission meticulously reviewed the timeliness of Mr Summers' application, confirming that it was indeed lodged within the prescribed period. Regarding the substantive issue of the dismissal, the Commission found that Mr Summers was not provided with sufficient notice and opportunity to address the allegations against him. This lack of procedural fairness rendered the dismissal unjust. Consequently, the Commission ordered that the dismissal be deemed unfair and required the employer to take appropriate remedial actions, including reinstatement and compensation to Mr Summers.

The final orders included the declaration that Mr Summers' dismissal was unjust and unlawful, mandating the employer to reinstate him to his former position and provide compensation for the period of his wrongful dismissal. Additionally, the employer was directed to ensure compliance with procedural fairness in future disciplinary processes.

Mr Mark Summers v Ttec

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established