Mr Ray Gruppetta v Coventry Group Limited

[2025] FWC 2523

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Ray Gruppetta
v

Coventry Group Limited

(U2025/9079)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON

MELBOURNE, 28 AUGUST 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – dismissal found to be unfair – reinstatement not appropriate – compensation ordered. 

Introduction

This decision concerns an application made by Mr Ray Gruppetta (the Applicant) for an unfair dismissal remedy (the Application) pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The Applicant was employed by Coventry Group Limited (the Respondent) and alleges he was dismissed on 23 May 2025. The Application was lodged by the Applicant on 27 May 2025.

For reasons given on transcript on 27 August 2025, I am satisfied that the Applicant was dismissed at the initiative of the Respondent. Having been satisfied in respect of the other initial matters, I have considered and found that the Applicant’s dismissal was harsh and thereby unfair, that reinstatement would be inappropriate and that an award of compensation is appropriate.

Finally, I have determined to make an order that the Respondent pay $21,679.94 gross less taxation as required by law to the Applicant in lieu of reinstatement within 14 days of the date of this decision. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued separately in conjunction with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

W Thain for the Applicant.
J Duncan for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2025.
Melbourne:
August 25.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Ray Gruppetta applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for an unfair dismissal remedy against his former employer, Coventry Group Limited. The Applicant alleged that he was dismissed on 23 May 2025. He lodged the Application on 27 May 2025, seeking relief under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary dispute was whether the dismissal was unfair, and if so, what remedy should be ordered.

The legal issues before the FWC were whether the dismissal was initiated by the Respondent, whether it was harsh, and if so, whether it was unfair. Additionally, the court had to determine if reinstatement was an appropriate remedy and, if not, what compensation should be awarded. The FWC found that the dismissal was initiated by the Respondent and was harsh, thus unfair. The court also determined that reinstatement would not be appropriate and ordered compensation instead.

In its decision, the FWC considered the circumstances of the dismissal and found that it was indeed harsh and thereby unfair. The Deputy President, Masson, concluded that while reinstatement would be the usual remedy, in this case, it was not appropriate. The FWC ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant $21,679.94 gross, less taxation as required by law, within 14 days of the decision date. An order to effect this decision will be issued separately.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established