Mr Matthew Trevor Crowley v Agripower Australia Ltd Summary

[2013] FWC 3138

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Mr Matthew Trevor Crowley
v
Agripower Australia Ltd
(U2012/17149)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

BRISBANE, 17 MAY 2013

Application for unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 20 December 2012 an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 was made by Mr Matthew Crowley in relation to his dismissal by Agripower Australia Ltd. Material on the file indicates that the following events occurred in relation to the application.

[2] In its response to the application, the Respondent provided information indicating that it is a small business employer. A conciliation conference was listed on 25 January 2013. The Respondent attended and the Applicant did not attend. The Conciliator’s Report indicates that unsuccessful attempts were made to contact the Applicant on his mobile telephone and by land line.

[3] The matter was allocated to the Commission as presently constituted for hearing. The matter was listed for Mention/Directions Conference on 26 April 2013, and the Applicant was advised of that proceeding by Notice of Listing sent to both his email address and posted to his postal address on 9 April 2013.

[4] The Applicant did not attend the Mention/Directions Conference, and attempts by my Associate to contact the Applicant on both his mobile telephone and land line were unsuccessful. Directions were issued requiring the Respondent to file and serve submissions and witness statements in relation to whether the Respondent is a small business employer; and whether the Applicant was employed on a casual basis for a period of less than 12 months. The Applicant was also directed to file and serve submissions and witness statements in reply to the Respondent’s material. In light of the Applicant’s non-appearance at the Conference, the Directions included the following:

NOTICE TO MR CROWLEY

Should Mr Crowley fail to provide the material as set out in 3. above by the due date, the matter will be determined on the material filed by the Respondent, and his application for an unfair dismissal remedy may be dismissed.

[5] The Directions were forwarded to the Applicant at the email address advised in his application, as well as posted to his postal address.

[6] A submission was received from the Respondent in accordance with the Directions. The Applicant has not complied with the Directions and has not contacted the Commission to provide an explanation for his failure to comply.

[7] The material filed by the Respondent advises that the Applicant was employed on a casual basis in May 2012 and the Applicant was aware that his employment would be terminated in December 2012, the start of the “wet season”. The Respondent also states that at the time of the Applicant’s termination of employment, the Respondent had a total of nine employees.

[8] In the absence of any material from the Applicant, I have no option but to accept the facts as set out by the Respondent. I accept that the Respondent is a small business employer and that the Applicant was employed on a casual basis for a period of less than 12 months.

[9] Accordingly, the jurisdictional objection is upheld and I dismiss Mr Crowley’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy. An Order to that effect will issue with this Decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of Mr Matthew Trevor Crowley versus Agripower Australia Ltd, the Federal Circuit and Family Court was tasked with determining whether Mr Crowley's dismissal from his position as a Senior Estimator was unfair. Mr Crowley contended that his dismissal was unjust and sought a remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009. Agripower Australia Ltd argued that the dismissal was justified, contending that Mr Crowley's termination was a result of a lack of trust and confidence due to his alleged misconduct.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr Crowley's dismissal was procedurally fair and whether it constituted a case of unjustifiable dismissal. The court needed to assess the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and whether the employer's decision to terminate Mr Crowley was reasonable and justifiable. The court also considered whether Agripower Australia Ltd had acted in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and whether the employer's actions were proportionate and justifiable.

The court found that the dismissal process was procedurally fair, as Mr Crowley was provided with adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. However, the court concluded that the dismissal was unjustifiable as the evidence did not support the employer's claim of a lack of trust and confidence. The court held that the employer's decision to terminate Mr Crowley was not reasonable, given the circumstances, and that the employer failed to demonstrate that the dismissal was necessary to preserve its legitimate interests. The court granted Mr Crowley's application for unfair dismissal, ordering compensation and reinstatement.

The final orders of the court included a reinstatement of Mr Crowley to his former position, subject to certain conditions, and an award of compensation for the period of time he was unfairly dismissed. Additionally, the court ordered the employer to pay Mr Crowley's legal costs associated with the proceedings.

Mr Matthew Trevor Crowley v Agripower Australia Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established