Mr Stuart Edwards v Visy Packaging Pty. Ltd - [2025] FWC 2172

[2025] FWC 2172

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Stuart Edwards
v

Visy Packaging Pty. Ltd.

(U2024/14338)

COMMISSIONER HARPER-GREENWELL

MELBOURNE, 28 JULY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Stuart Edwards has made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s. 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). Mr Edwards was employed by Visy Packaging Pty Ltd (Visy) on a regular and systematic basis as a casual feeder attendant in Shepparton, Victoria. He was dismissed with effect from 8 November 2024 after Visy concluded due to a significant downturn in production it no longer required a casual feeder attendant to work the afternoon shift. Mr Edwards says that the real reason for his dismissal was because he “spoke out” during a pre-start meeting after receiving the wrong information on the production line, and for asking why employees weren’t allowed to park in front of the office anymore. Mr Edwards says Mr Langlands, the Manufacturing Manager, removed him from the afternoon shift roster and as punishment he was offered shifts that Visy knew he could not work because of his diabetes. Visy maintains the reason for Mr Edwards dismissal was because it no longer required casual labour on the afternoon shift after a drop in production volumes because of the decline in customer demand.

Preliminary matters

The following preliminary matters are not in dispute. Mr Edwards application was made within the 21-day period prescribed by s. 394(2) of the Act. Visy Packaging Pty Ltd is not a Small Business employer within the meaning of the Act therefore the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code does not apply. Mr Edwards does not raise in his application that the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy, however for completeness I am satisfied his dismissal was not for reasons of redundancy and even if Mr Edwards had been made redundant as a causal employee he would not have been entitled to any redundancy pay.[1]

During his employment at Visy, Mr Edwards was covered by the Visy Packaging Pty Limited (Shepparton) Enterprise Agreement 2022[2], and he earned less than the high-income threshold. It is also not in dispute that Mr Edwards was employed on a regular and systematic basis as a casual employee and had completed a period of employment with Visy that was at least the minimum employment period required by s. 382 of the Act. I am satisfied that Mr Edwards is a person protected from unfair dismissal. I am therefore required to consider the merits of Mr Edwards unfair dismissal application taking into account the matters in s. 387 of the Act.

Was Mr Edwards dismissal for a valid reason related to capacity or conduct.

Visy submits that Mr Edwards was not dismissed for reasons of conduct. Visy also submits that Mr Edwards could at all times perform the role of feeder attendant. Visy submits that although Mr Edwards recently claimed he could not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mr Stuart Edwards v Visy Packaging Pty. Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FWC 2172
Decision Date: 28 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Stuart Edwards, a casual feeder attendant for Visy Packaging Pty Ltd, applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal. Visy dismissed Mr Edwards from his afternoon shift role due to a downturn in production and customer demand, leading to fewer production lines operating on the afternoon shift. Mr Edwards argued that his dismissal was retaliatory, as he had raised concerns during a pre-start meeting and objected to changes in parking arrangements. He also claimed that Visy offered him shifts that he could not work due to his diabetes. Visy maintained that Mr Edwards was dismissed due to operational requirements and not for any conduct or capacity issues.

The Commission had to determine whether Visy had a valid reason for dismissing Mr Edwards related to his capacity or conduct. Visy argued that the dismissal was due to a genuine operational requirement resulting from reduced production and customer demand. Mr Edwards contended that he was dismissed for raising concerns during a meeting and that Visy knew he could not work the day shift due to his diabetes. The Commission examined the evidence and found that Visy's reason for the dismissal was based on operational necessity rather than Mr Edwards' conduct or capacity. The Commission also noted that Mr Edwards had refused to work any shifts other than the afternoon shift, making it impossible for Visy to offer him other work. Additionally, the Commission found that Mr Edwards' claim of diabetes was not substantiated and that Visy did not rely on his medical condition as a reason for dismissal.

The Commission concluded that Visy had a legitimate reason for dismissing Mr Edwards, as there was a substantial drop in production and customer demand, resulting in fewer afternoon shifts. Visy had made efforts to maintain the employment relationship, but Mr Edwards' refusal to work any shifts other than the afternoon shift led to the termination of his employment. The Commission found that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and dismissed Mr Edwards' application for an unfair dismissal remedy. An order to this effect will be published separately.

Orders