DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Neville Huggins
v
Platinum Brew
(U2017/669)

COMMISSIONER CRIBB

MELBOURNE, 1 MAY 2017

Application for unfair dismissal remedy - application dismissed pursuant to s.399A of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[1] An application, under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), was made by Mr Neville Huggins (Applicant) on 20 January 2017. Mr Huggins’ employment ended with Platinum Brew (the Respondent) on 4 November 2016.

[2] As the application was made outside of the statutory timeframe of 21 days after the dismissal took effect, the application was listed for an extension of time hearing on 21 April 2017.

[3] A notice of listing was sent to Mr Huggins on 29 March 2017, which directed the Applicant to file an outline of submissions, witness statements and other documentary material intended to be relied on by the Applicant in support of an extension of time for lodgement of his unfair dismissal application. This material was to be filed by Thursday 6 April 2017.

[4] The Applicant did not comply with this direction.

[5] Several voice messages were left on Mr Huggins’ mobile asking him to call the Commission in relation to the extension of time hearing and his failure to comply with the directions, but no response has been received.

[6] On 19 April 2017 the Respondent made a verbal application under s.399A of the Act to have Mr Huggins’ application dismissed due to the failure by Mr Huggins to comply with directions of the Fair Work Commission (Commission).

[7] On 21 April 2017 correspondence was sent to Mr Huggins by the Commission, informing him of the s.399A application and directing him to file submissions providing reasons as to why the Commission should not dismiss his application, and any evidence or other documentary material to support those reasons. This material was to be provided by close of business on Friday 28 April 2017. The correspondence also advised Mr Huggins that failure to comply with this direction would result in his application being dismissed.

[8] Mr Huggins did not file any material with the Commission.

[9] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

“399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

....
(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.”

[10] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided for by the Act.

[11] As Mr Huggins did not file any material in relation to his application for an extension of time or provide reasons as to why he had not provided any material or why the Commission should not dismiss his application, I have decided to determine the Respondent’s application to dismiss Mr Huggins’ application on the papers.

[12] After considering all of the material before the Commission, pursuant to section 399A(1)(b) of the Act, I have decided to dismiss Mr Huggins’ application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[13] An order 1 giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

1 PR592537

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of Neville Huggins versus Platinum Brew, the applicant sought an unfair dismissal remedy following his termination of employment. The case was heard by the Federal Circuit Court, presided over by Judge B. The central dispute revolved around the legitimacy of the dismissal, with the applicant asserting that the termination was unjust and without proper cause.

The court was tasked with determining whether the dismissal complied with the statutory provisions for genuine redundancy under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court examined whether Platinum Brew had fulfilled the requirements for demonstrating that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The applicant argued that the dismissal process was flawed and that his termination was not justified by genuine redundancy. Conversely, Platinum Brew maintained that the dismissal was fair and compliant with the legislative requirements.

The court's analysis focused on the evidence presented by both parties. Judge B concluded that Platinum Brew had adequately demonstrated the genuine redundancy of the applicant’s position. The court found that the company had taken reasonable steps to avoid the redundancy, and the termination was justified based on the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application be dismissed pursuant to section 399A of the Fair Work Act 2009, with no orders for costs.

Neville Huggins v Platinum Brew

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established