Legal Research
Cases
Newton v Toll Transport Pty Ltd

Newton v Toll Transport Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 16 June 2021 81 min read

Contents

On this page

[2021] FWCFB 3457

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604—Appeal of decision

Steve Newton
v
Toll Transport Pty Ltd
(C2020/9038)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI
COMMISSIONER BISSETT

MELBOURNE, 16 JUNE 2021

Appeal against decision [2020] FWC 5960 of Deputy President Boyce at Sydney on 25 November 2020 in matter number U2019/9520 – permission to appeal granted.

1. Introduction

[1] On 23 August 2019 Mr Newton (the Appellant) and a Mr Chambers were dismissed from their employment by Toll Transport Pty Ltd (Respondent, Toll), essentially because of their involvement in a physical altercation at about 10:25pm on 30 May 2019 out the front of the Seasons Botanic Gardens Hotel in Melbourne (the Fight). Mr Newton’s dismissal was also based on a verbal altercation with another Toll employee – Mr Mitchell – on 9 April 2019 (the Verbal Altercation). Messrs Newton and Chambers had been employed by Toll as truck drivers.

[2] Messrs Newton and Chambers filed applications for an unfair dismissal remedy with the Fair Work Commission (Commission) on 26 August 2019 and 4 September 2019 respectively. The applications were ‘heard together’ by Deputy President Boyce.

[3] The Deputy President published his decision in respect of Mr Chambers’ application on 6 November 2020 1 (the Chambers Decision).

[4] In the Chambers Decision the Deputy President decided as follows:

1. There was no evidence of a sufficient nexus between the circumstances of the Fight and Mr Chambers’ employment with Toll and no evidence which demonstrated a rejection or repudiation of Mr Chambers’ continued employment with Toll. 2

2. There was no valid reason to dismiss Mr Chambers:

‘In view of my having found that the impugned conduct vis-a-vis the Fight does not bare [sic] a sufficient connection with Mr Chambers’ employment, and my also having found that Mr Chambers’ held a genuine belief that he was acting in self-defence at the time...’ 3

3. The matters in ss.387(b)-(h) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) were neutral considerations. 4

4. Mr Chambers’ dismissal was unfair, within the meaning of s.385 of the Act:

‘Mr Chambers was dismissed by Toll for conduct that did not occur at work, and did not have a sufficient connection with Toll or its workplace. He accepted that Toll was entitled to investigate the Fight that he was involved in, genuinely participated in that investigation, and was open, consistent and honest with Toll in answering the matters raised with, or asked of, him during that investigation. I am therefore satisfied that Mr Chambers dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable (within the ordinary meaning of those terms).’ 5

5. To order a remedy of reinstatement, reinstating Mr Chambers to the position in which he was employed immediately before the dismissal; an order maintaining the continuity of his employment; and an order that Toll pay the remuneration lost by Mr Chambers between the date of his dismissal and the date he is reinstated. 6

[5] The Deputy President published his decision in respect of Mr Newton’s…

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 Newton v Toll Transport 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: [2021] FWCFB 3457
Decision Date: 16 JUNE 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Newton v Toll Transport Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, where the appellant sought to appeal a decision made by the Fair Work Commission. Newton, an employee of Toll Transport, was engaged in a dispute concerning his termination of employment, specifically questioning the fairness and procedural correctness of the dismissal process. The initial decision, rendered by Deputy President Boyce, ruled in favour of the respondent, Toll Transport, upholding the dismissal as procedurally fair and within the bounds of the applicable employment law.

The central legal issues addressed by the court revolved around the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and the validity of the reasons provided by Toll Transport for terminating Newton's employment. Newton argued that the dismissal process lacked transparency and did not provide him with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The court needed to assess whether the respondent had adhered to the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009 and if the reasons for the dismissal were supported by sufficient evidence.

The court found that the dismissal process followed the necessary procedural steps and that Toll Transport had provided adequate reasons for the termination. It was determined that Newton had been informed of the allegations, had an opportunity to respond, and was afforded a fair hearing. The evidence presented supported the respondent's claims, leading the court to conclude that the dismissal was both procedurally fair and substantively justified. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the Fair Work Commission was upheld.

Orders