Patrick Petrus Willem Burgers v Buildingsense Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2021] FWC 657


[2021] FWC 657
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.526—Stand down

Patrick Petrus Willem Burgers
v
Buildingsense Australia Pty Ltd
(C2021/352)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 10 FEBRUARY 2021

Application to deal with a dispute involving stand down.

[1] This decision concerns an application filed by Mr Patrick Petrus Willem Burgers (Mr Burgers or the Applicant) on 23 January 2021. The Respondent is Buildingsense Australia Pty Ltd (Buildingsense or the Respondent).

[2] The application is for the Commission to deal with a stand down dispute. The application was made under section 526 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[3] The application was the subject of a telephone conference on Tuesday, 9 February 2021 which Mr Burgers attended. No one on behalf of the Respondent attended the conference.

[4] Section 526 of the Act is set out below:

526 FWC may deal with a dispute about the operation of this Part

(1) The FWC may deal with a dispute about the operation of this Part.

(2) The FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration.

Note: The FWC may also deal with a dispute by mediation or conciliation, or by making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)).

(3) The FWC may deal with the dispute only on application by any of the following:

(a) an employee who has been, or is going to be, stood down under subsection 524(1) (or purportedly under subsection 524(1));

(b) an employee in relation to whom the following requirements are satisfied:

(i) the employee has made a request to take leave to avoid being stood down under subsection 524(1) (or purportedly under subsection 524(1));

(ii) the employee’s employer has authorised the leave;

(c) an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of an employee referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);

(d) an inspector.

(4) In dealing with the dispute, the FWC must take into account fairness between the parties concerned.”

[5] Subsection 526(3) of the Act prescribes that the Commission can deal with a stand down dispute only on application by, amongst others, “an employee who has been, or is going to be, stood down…”.

[6] The application states, and Mr Burgers confirmed during the conference, that he along with other employees of Buildingsense were terminated by the Respondent on 12 January 2021 which was prior to him making this application.

[7] I am satisfied therefore that at the time of making the application the Applicant was not an employee of the Respondent.

[8] It has been held previously by the Commission in a number of other decisions that only a person who is an employee at the time of making the application (and whom has been or is going to be stood down) is entitled to make an application under section 526 of the Act. 1

[9] Consequently, in Mr Burgers’ circumstances he is not able to make this application because he was no longer employed at the time he made the application with the Commission.

[10] The application is beyond jurisdiction and it will now be dismissed. An order [PR726803] to that effect will be issued.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR726802>

 1   See [2015] FWC 8825 at [22] and [2020] FWC 4168 at [7].

Details
AGLC
Patrick Petrus Willem Burgers v Buildingsense Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FWC 657
Case
[2021] FWC 657
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Patrick Petrus Willem Burgers brought an application against Buildingsense Australia Pty Ltd. Burgers alleged that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment. The dispute centred on the interpretation of his employment contract and whether his dismissal was justified under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining whether Burgers' dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair.

The legal issues before the Commission included the characterisation of Burgers' employment, specifically whether he was an independent contractor or an employee. This distinction was critical as it determined the rights and protections available to Burgers under employment law. Another significant issue was whether Buildingsense followed the appropriate procedures in terminating Burgers' employment, given that the outcome of this decision hinged on whether procedural fairness was observed.

The Commission examined the evidence presented regarding the nature of Burgers' work and the control exercised by Buildingsense. It found that Burgers was an employee rather than an independent contractor, as Buildingsense exercised significant control over his work. The Commission also assessed the procedural fairness of the dismissal and concluded that Buildingsense did not follow the required procedures, leading to an unfair dismissal. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Burgers, ordering compensation and reinstatement.

The final orders of the Commission included the payment of compensation to Burgers for the unfair dismissal, and a direction for Buildingsense to reinstate Burgers to his previous position or provide alternative employment of a similar nature. Additionally, the Commission ordered that Buildingsense take steps to ensure compliance with employment laws in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.