Mr Tristan Place v Ignition Immersive Pty Ltd Summary

[2024] FWC 26

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Tristan Place
v

Ignition Immersive Pty Ltd

(U2023/8974)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 4 JANUARY 2024

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

On 18 September 2023, Mr Tristan Place (Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) for a remedy in respect of his dismissal by Ignition Immersive Pty Ltd (Employer/Respondent).

The Applicant contended that he was forced to resign because of a course of conduct by the Respondent concerning the non-payment or delayed payment of wages, entitlements, superannuation and commissions.

On 2 October 2023, the Employer filed a response to the unfair dismissal application.

Attempts at conciliation were attempted, but the matter remained unresolved.

Consequently, the matter was programmed and listed for a jurisdictional hearing (the Respondent contending that the Applicant had not been dismissed) on Friday, 5 January 2024.

In response to the Directions the parties filed the following materials:

Exhibit	Document title	Date
1	Form F2	18-09-2023
1.1	Attachment Marked A	undated
2	Form F3	02-10-2023
2.1	Commission Agreement - Tristan Place	22-04-2021
2.2	Small Business Fair Dismissal Code Checklist	02-10-2023
3	Respondent's outline of arguments: Objections	29-11-2023
4	Email from the Applicant attaching submissions	13-12-2023
4.1	Applicant's outline of arguments: Objections	13-12-2023
4.2	Applicant's outline of arguments: Merits	13-12-2023
4.3	Applicant's statement of evidence	13-12-2023
4.4	Applicant's document list	various
4.5	Document titled "Working notes on Constructive Dismissal Argument"	undated
4.6	Document titled "Respondent objection statements and rebuttal notes"	undated

On 2 January 2024, in the course of filing its materials, the Respondent made a number of concessions and withdrew its jurisdictional objection.

On the same day, I sought to clarify the Respondent’s position and proposed that the matter could be resolved by way of consent orders. On 4 January 2024 the parties agreed.

Consequently, having regard to the materials submitted by the parties, the concessions made by the Respondent and the consent orders agreed to, I am satisfied that:

a)The Applicant is a person protected from unfair dismissal,
b)The dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code,
c)The dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy,
d)The Applicant was dismissed within the meaning of section 386(1)(b) of the FW Act, in that he was forced to resign because of a course of conduct engaged in by the Respondent,
e)There was no valid reason for the dismissal related to the Applicant’s capacity or conduct,
f)The dismissal of the Applicant was harsh and unreasonable,
g)The dismissal of the Applicant was, therefore, unfair,
h)Reinstatement would be inappropriate,

Compensation is appropriate, and

j)By consent of the parties, compensation in the amount of one month’s salary: $11,538.46 payable within 21 days.

An order [PR769955] will be issued with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Hearing details:

On the papers.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Tristan Place applied to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy following his dismissal by Ignition Immersive Pty Ltd. He contended that he was forced to resign due to the employer's non-payment or delayed payment of wages, entitlements, superannuation, and commissions. The employer argued that the dismissal was not unfair. The matter was listed for a jurisdictional hearing, but the employer conceded that the applicant was protected from unfair dismissal and had been forced to resign due to the employer's conduct.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the applicant was protected from unfair dismissal, whether the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, whether the dismissal was genuine redundancy, whether the applicant was dismissed within the meaning of section 386(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009, whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the applicant's capacity or conduct, whether the dismissal was harsh and unreasonable, whether reinstatement was appropriate, and whether compensation was appropriate. The Commission found that the applicant was protected from unfair dismissal, that the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, that the dismissal was not genuine redundancy, that the applicant was dismissed within the meaning of section 386(1)(b), that there was no valid reason for the dismissal related to the applicant's capacity or conduct, and that the dismissal was harsh and unreasonable. The Commission also found that reinstatement would be inappropriate, but that compensation was appropriate.

The Fair Work Commission found that the applicant was protected from unfair dismissal and that he was dismissed within the meaning of section 386(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission found that the employer's conduct amounted to a course of conduct that forced the applicant to resign and that there was no valid reason for the dismissal related to the applicant's capacity or conduct. The Commission found that the dismissal was harsh and unreasonable and, therefore, unfair. The Commission also found that reinstatement would be inappropriate, but that compensation was appropriate. The employer conceded that compensation in the amount of one month’s salary was appropriate and that it should be paid within 21 days. The Commission accepted the concession and ordered that compensation in the amount of one month’s salary be paid within 21 days.

An order will be issued with this decision.

Mr Tristan Place v Ignition Immersive Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established