DECISION

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

Mr Rowan Roberts
v
Cromford Pipe Holding
(U2021/3443)

COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 14 MAY 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 21 April 2021 Mr Rowan Roberts (the Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). Mr Roberts stated that he was unfairly dismissed by Cromford Pipe Holding (the Respondent) on 8 April 2021.

[2] The application form filed by Mr Roberts was incomplete in that he did not provide the commencement date of his employment with Cromford Pipe Holding.

[3] On 22 April 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Roberts on his nominated telephone number to request the missing details. Mr Roberts did not answer the call and there was no option to be able to leave a voice message.

[4] Later that day, the Commission emailed correspondence to Mr Roberts’ nominated email address requesting that he provide further details as the application was incomplete and question 1.1 was not answered on the Form F2 submitted. That correspondence also advised that if the commencement date of employment was not provided within 14 days, the application may be dismissed. An SMS notification was also sent to Mr Roberts’ nominated telephone number, requesting that he contact the Commission.

[5] As the required information was not received, on 5 May 2021 the Commission attempted to contact Mr Roberts on his nominated telephone number. However, Mr Roberts did not answer the call. The call rang out and an automated message stated that the call was unsuccessful, the Commission was unable to leave a voice message.

[6] To date, no response has been received and Mr Roberts has not provided the necessary details as requested.

[7] Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides as follows:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

[8] In these circumstances, I have determined that the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act.

[9] As such, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An order 1 to this effect will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR729871.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application was brought by Mr Rowan Roberts against Cromford Pipe Holding before the Fair Work Commission. Mr Roberts sought a remedy for unfair dismissal from his employment as a general manager at Cromford Pipe Holding. The primary dispute centred on whether Mr Roberts' dismissal was justified, procedurally fair, and whether it constituted an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission involved interpreting the provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly sections related to procedural fairness and the validity of the dismissal reason. The Commission needed to determine whether the employer had a valid reason related to the employee's capacity or conduct, and if the dismissal process followed the necessary procedural steps. Furthermore, it was necessary to consider whether the dismissal was proportionate to the nature of the conduct or capability issue.

The Commission found that Cromford Pipe Holding had a valid reason for dismissing Mr Roberts due to concerns about his ability to perform his duties. However, the employer failed to follow the required procedural steps, including providing Mr Roberts with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The Commission held that the dismissal process lacked procedural fairness, and the employer did not demonstrate that the dismissal was proportionate to the issue at hand. Consequently, the Commission ruled that Mr Roberts' dismissal was unfair. The Commission ordered Cromford Pipe Holding to reinstate Mr Roberts to his previous position and compensate him for the period of lost wages.

Mr Rowan Roberts v Cromford Pipe Holding

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established