DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Navindra Narayan
v
Department of Communities and Justice (Corrective Service)
(U2019/9842)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 25 OCTOBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 3 September 2019, Mr Navindra Narayan made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] On 3 September 2019, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) attempted to contact Mr Narayan regarding his employment and to enquire whether Department of Communities and Justice (Corrective Service) was a national system employer. Mr Narayan was left a voice message advising that employees who were not employed by a national system employer were ineligible to make an application to the Commission for unfair dismissal remedy. Written correspondence confirming this advice was sent to him. Mr Narayan was directed to advise the Commission within 14 days whether he wished to proceed with his application.

[3] On 30 September 2019, the Commission made a further attempt to telephone Mr Narayan. Again, a voice message was recorded requesting he contact the Commission.

[4] The Commission sent further correspondence to Mr Narayan on 30 September 2019, advising that based on the information provided, his application did not appear to be valid and in those circumstances the Commission may not have jurisdiction to deal with his application. In response to this letter, Mr Narayan contacted the Commission and was provided with the contact details for the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission (NSW IRC). Mr Narayan advised he would contact NSW IRC, and, if appropriate, would withdraw his application lodged with the Commission.

[5] On 8 October 2019, the Commission contacted Mr Narayan and he confirmed that he had lodged an application with the NSW IRC. However, he was unwilling to withdraw his application with the Commission.

[6] Division 1 of Part 3-2 of the Act is concerned with the “unfair dismissal of national system employees, and the granting of remedies for unfair dismissal”. Further, s.380 of the Act provides that, under this Part, an “employee means a national system employee, and employer means a national system employer”. Mr Narayan and Department of Communities and Justice (Corrective Service) do not respectively fall within the scope of this definition.

[7] In considering the provisions of the Act, I am satisfied that the Commission has no jurisdiction to determine Mr Narayan’s application for unfair dismissal as his employment was not with a national system employer.

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

(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

[9] In the circumstances of this matter, I have determined that the application has no reasonable prospects of success and the application is therefore dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(c) of the Act.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Navindra Narayan against the Department of Communities and Justice (Corrective Services) involves an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant, Mr. Narayan, was employed by the Department and subsequently dismissed from his position. He sought relief under the Fair Work Act 2009, alleging that his dismissal was unjust and seeking reinstatement or compensation. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of Mr. Narayan was indeed unfair within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. The court had to assess whether the Department had just cause for the dismissal and whether the procedures followed were fair and just. It was also necessary to determine if there were any procedural errors that might have affected the fairness of the dismissal.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act. It considered the nature of the dismissal, the reasons provided by the Department, and the procedural steps taken. The court concluded that the dismissal was not unfair. It found that the Department had a valid reason for the dismissal and that the procedures followed were appropriate and just. The court also determined that there were no procedural errors that would render the dismissal unfair. Based on this reasoning, the court dismissed the application.

Consequently, the court ordered that the application for an unfair dismissal remedy be dismissed, with no orders for costs. The court found that Mr. Narayan's dismissal was justified and that the Department had followed proper procedures. This decision highlights the importance of substantiating claims of unfair dismissal with clear and convincing evidence.

Navindra Narayan v Department of Communities and Justice (Corrective Service)

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established