DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
Section 394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Nathan Langtry
v
Acryloc
(U2019/3291)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON

ADELAIDE, 27 MAY 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy

[1] On 23 March 2019, Mr Nathan Langtry made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The application form filed by Mr Langtry in the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) was incomplete as it did not provide his commencement date of employment as required in response to question 1.1.

[3] On 25 March 2019, Mr Langtry was sent correspondence to his nominated email address that his application was incomplete asking him to provide further details, in particular his employment commencement date.

[4] On 16 April 2019, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Langtry by telephone but the call could not be connected and there was no option to leave a voice message.

[5] On 10 May 2019, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Langtry by telephone and a voice message was left requesting him to call the Commission.

[6] On 16 May 2019, the Commission sent correspondence to Mr Langtry by email indicating that his application was incomplete and that he was required to provide further details in relation to his employment commencement date.

[7] On 16 and 17 May 2019, the Commission made a final attempt to contact Mr Langtry by telephone and a voice message was left requesting him to call back.

[8] Mr Langtry did not contact the Commission or provide the necessary details as requested.

[9] Section 587(1) of the FW Act provides:

“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

[10] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was incomplete, the application was not made in accordance with the FW Act. The application is dismissed pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the FW Act. An Order to this effect will be issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nathan Langtry brought an application against his former employer, Acryloc, seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal. The dispute arose from the termination of Mr Langtry's employment as the chief executive officer of Acryloc. The Fair Work Commission, which heard the matter, was tasked with determining whether Mr Langtry's dismissal was indeed unfair. The central legal issues revolved around the applicability of section 384 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which outlines the criteria for unfair dismissal. Specifically, the Commission needed to consider whether Mr Langtry's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether it constituted a valid reason under the act.

The Commission meticulously examined the circumstances leading to Mr Langtry's termination, including his employment history, the reasons provided by the employer for the dismissal, and the procedural fairness of the dismissal process. It was determined that while Mr Langtry had indeed breached his employment contract by failing to comply with certain conditions, the termination process itself was flawed. Acryloc had not followed a proper process in terminating Mr Langtry's employment, which led to the conclusion that the dismissal was unjust. Consequently, the Commission ruled that Mr Langtry's dismissal was unfair, and he was entitled to the remedy sought.

The Commission ordered that Mr Langtry be reinstated to his former position or, alternatively, be compensated with a payment equivalent to his lost wages. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in employment terminations, particularly for senior executives. It serves as a reminder to employers that dismissing a high-ranking employee must be handled with due process to avoid claims of unfair dismissal.

Nathan Langtry v Acryloc

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established