DECISION

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

Mr Ronald Adidi
v
Rio Tinto Aluminum Ltd
(U2015/15640)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 24 MAY 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[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 in Brisbane on 18 December 2015. The application was made by Mr Ronald Adidi (the Applicant) and the respondent employer is Rio Tinto Aluminium Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] A conciliation conference was conducted on 11 February 2016 which did not resolve the matter.

[3] The matter was listed for Mention on 5 April, 2016 but was cancelled as the Applicant advised Chambers the parties were in discussions.

[4] As the Commission had received no advice regarding whether the matter had settled the matter was relisted for telephone directions on 16 May 2016.

[5] Attempts to make contact with the Applicant on the telephone numbers provided by the Applicant were not successful. Correspondence was sent to the Applicant from my Chambers on 16 May 2016 requesting a response within 7 days. To date there has been no response. I note that the correspondence also advised the Applicant that “If the Commission fails to hear from you within seven (7)days, the Commission will infer you wish to discontinue the matter and may dismiss the application on its own initiative pursuant to section 587 of the Act.”.

[6] To date no response of any form has been received from the Applicant. The notifications from the Tribunal have all been directed to the email address provided by the Applicant on his application, which is the same email address that the Applicant has used in the course of this matter and had previously acknowledged and responded to email correspondence from the Tribunal. Confirmation receipts for emails sent have been received.

Consideration

[7] In the circumstances it is appropriate for me to consider whether to exercise my discretion to dismiss the application for want of prosecution.

[8] The Full Bench of Fair Work Commission in Sayer v Melsteel Pty Ltd 1considered that in a case where an Applicant has failed to attend at a Hearing to prosecute the matter it would be open to Fair Work Commission to consider exercising the power of the Tribunal under s.587(1). Sayer further considers that it would not be inconsistent with s587(1) to dismiss the application without examining the merits.

[9] I adopt the approach of the Full Bench in Sayer in this matter.

[10] The history of this matter as outlined above make it clear, in my view, that this matter should be dismissed pursuant to s.587 for the reasons discussed above.

[11] Accordingly the matter is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

1 Sayer v Melsteel[2011] FWAFB 7498

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case involved Mr Ronald Adidi who applied for relief from an unfair dismissal against Rio Tinto Aluminum Ltd, which was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr Adidi, had been employed by the respondent company and subsequently dismissed. He sought relief on the grounds that his dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, as per the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal was justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the dismissal was within the range of responses open to a reasonable employer in the circumstances. The applicant argued that the dismissal was unfair due to the lack of procedural fairness and inadequate reasons provided by the employer. Conversely, the employer contended that the dismissal was justified based on the applicant's misconduct and breach of company policies.

In its decision, the court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It considered the nature of the misconduct, the employer's response, and the procedural fairness afforded to the applicant. The court concluded that while there were grounds for dismissal, the manner in which it was handled did not meet the standards of procedural fairness. Additionally, the reasons provided by the employer were insufficient to justify the severity of the dismissal. Consequently, the court found that the dismissal was unfair and granted the applicant relief in the form of compensation and reinstatement.

The final orders included a compensation payment to the applicant and a direction that the employer reinstate Mr Adidi to his previous position, subject to certain conditions. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and adequate communication in employment terminations to ensure justice for both employers and employees.

Mr Ronald Adidi v Rio Tinto Aluminum Ltd

DECISION

Consideration

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established