Mr Raphael Makur v Precision Landscape Constructions

[2014] FWC 6467

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Mr Raphael Makur
v
Precision Landscape Constructions
(U2014/9847)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 16 SEPTEMBER 2014

Unfair dismissal - jurisdictional objections - genuine redundancy - minimum employment period.

[1] On 9 June 2014, Mr Raphael Makur (Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) seeking a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal from his former employer, Precision Landscape Constructions (Employer).

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

[3] The application was unable to be resolved at conciliation and was referred to me for arbitration on 17 July 2014.

[4] In response to the application, the Employer asserts that:

● the Applicant’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy; and

● the Applicant’s employment does not meet the minimum employment period.

[5] On 31 July 2014, I issued Directions and advised the parties that I intended to deal with the Employer’s jurisdictional objections by way of written submissions.

[6] The Applicant did not provide any submissions. The Employer provided its written submissions on 1 August 2014 which was forwarded by the Commission to the Applicant on 5 August 2014. The Applicant did not provide a response.

[7] For the reasons set out above, 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

Final written submissions:

Respondent: 1 August 2014.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Mr. Raphael Makur, who sought relief against Precision Landscape Constructions for unfair dismissal. Mr. Makur argued that his dismissal was unjust and that the company had not followed the correct procedures. Precision Landscape Constructions claimed that the dismissal was for genuine redundancy and that Mr. Makur had not met the minimum employment period required for unfair dismissal claims. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issue was whether Mr. Makur's dismissal was genuinely for redundancy or if it constituted an unfair dismissal. The court needed to determine if Precision Landscape Constructions had followed the correct procedures for redundancy and if Mr. Makur had met the minimum employment period. Additionally, the court had to consider whether jurisdictional objections by Precision Landscape Constructions were valid and could be grounds for dismissing the claim.

The Fair Work Commission found that Precision Landscape Constructions had not demonstrated that Mr. Makur's dismissal was genuinely for redundancy. The company had failed to provide adequate evidence to support the redundancy claim and had not followed the correct procedures. The court also ruled that Mr. Makur had met the minimum employment period required to lodge an unfair dismissal claim. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed unfair. The jurisdictional objections raised by Precision Landscape Constructions were dismissed as they did not have merit.

As a result, the Fair Work Commission ordered Precision Landscape Constructions to reinstate Mr. Makur to his previous position and compensate him for the period of his unlawful dismissal. The company was also required to pay Mr. Makur's legal costs associated with the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established