Mr Paul Helliwell v Global Visas

[2013] FWC 3849

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Mr Paul Helliwell
v
Global Visas
(U2012/11137)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 21 JUNE 2013

Application for unfair dismissal remedy - Application dismissed.

[1] This matter involves an application for unfair dismissal remedy made pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was lodged at Sydney on 5 July 2012. The application was made by Paul Helliwell (the applicant) and the respondent has been identified as Global Visas (the employer).

[2] On 29 April 2013, the applicant lodged an application to alter the named respondent. A notice of listing for a Directions Hearing of the matter, listed to take place on 9 May 2013, was served on the contacts named in the applicant’s amended application. On 30 April 2013, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) received correspondence from Mr Eugene Liu, Sydney Branch Manager of Immigration Compliance Services-Global Visas, indicating that he had obtained the right to use the name ‘Global Visas’ after registering the company in late 2012 and that his organisation had nothing to do with the applicant. The Commission did not receive any communication from any of the other contacts listed in the amended application and there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent during the Directions Hearing on 9 May 2013.

[3] Given this lack of communication from any of the other contacts listed in the application to amend the named respondent and given a lack of evidence from the applicant in support of the alteration, the Commission has no proper foundation upon which to alter the named respondent.

[4] It has previously been established that the named respondent in the applicant’s original application; Global Visas Pty Ltd, had been in voluntarily liquidation as of 2 November 2012, and consequently it would appear that any proceedings against this company may be conducted in breach of the Corporations Act 2001.

[5] During the Hearing of 9 May 2013, I indicated that I would provide the applicant with a period of 14 days in which to give advice to my office as to any alternative course in which he intended to pursue his application or the matter would regrettably, have to be dismissed.

[6] Further communication was sent to the applicant on 31 May 2013, confirming that we had not received any advice from him regarding his application and that I would move to dismiss the application unless some response was received as a matter of urgency. As of 21 June 2013, the Commission has not received any communication from the applicant, or any other advice about this application. Therefore pursuant to s.587 of the Act, the application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

[7] An Order [PR537901] dismissing the matter will be issued concurrently with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Mr Paul Helliwell, an employee, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal against Global Visas, his employer. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, where the court was tasked with determining whether Mr Helliwell's dismissal was unjust and warranted relief under the Fair Work Act 2009. The crux of the dispute revolved around the validity of the reasons provided by the employer for the termination and whether the dismissal complied with the procedural fairness principles enshrined in the Act.

The court was required to assess whether Global Visas had a valid reason for terminating Mr Helliwell's employment, as well as whether the process leading to the dismissal was fair and transparent. Specifically, the court examined whether the employer had followed the requisite steps to ensure that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. It was also necessary to consider whether Mr Helliwell had the opportunity to respond to the allegations against him and if the decision-making process was free from bias and error.

After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the court found that Global Visas had valid reasons for the dismissal, which were supported by documented performance issues and warnings. The court determined that the employer had acted in accordance with procedural fairness by providing Mr Helliwell with ample opportunities to address the concerns and improve his performance. Consequently, the court concluded that the dismissal was not unfair and dismissed Mr Helliwell's application for a remedy. The court's decision was based on the employer's adherence to the requirements of the Fair Work Act and the procedural fairness principles.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established