Peter Hanlan v Buick Holdings Pty Ltd T/A DVG Morley City Hyundai Summary

[2014] FWC 1837

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Peter Hanlan
v
Buick Holdings Pty Ltd T/A DVG Morley City Hyundai
(U2013/16189)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 19 MARCH 2014

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mr Peter Hanlan (the applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is Buick Holdings Pty Ltd T/A DVG Morley City Hyundai (the respondent).

[2] The application was the subject of a conference with a Fair Work Commission conciliator however the matter was not resolved and so has been referred for determination.

[3] The respondent has objected to the application proceeding on the grounds that it was made more than 21 days after the date of dismissal.

[4] I wrote to the applicant on 14 February 2014 advising that the matter would be listed for a formal determinative proceeding and explaining the procedure involved. The letter requested that the applicant advise whether he wished to proceed with that hearing or to discontinue the application. The letter was sent by email only because this was the only contact details provided on the application.

[5] No response was received from Mr Hanlan.

[6] Further correspondence was sent to the applicant on 27 February 2014 again requesting his response. This was also sent by email.

[7] That correspondence explained that lack of a response would be taken as an indication that he did not want to continue with the application and the matter may be dismissed.

[8] As at the date of this decision there has been no response or contact from the applicant.

The legislation

[9] Section 577 of the Act obliges the Fair Work Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

[10] Further section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Fair Work Commission must take into account the objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

[11] A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.

[12] The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381 of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.

[13] Section 587 (3) of the Act empowers the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

Decision

[14] In this case the applicant has failed to comply with the directions to explain his intentions and has been put on notice that a failure to respond to the Fair Work Commission may lead to his application being dismissed. The applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[15] The respondent employer is entitled to a fair go including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time. The respondent has raised jurisdictional objections to the application, namely that the applicant was made outside the statutory time limits.

[16] Consequently my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now dismissed on the initiative of the Fair Work Commission under section 587 (3) of the Act.

[17] An order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an employee, Peter Hanlan, who sought to challenge the validity of his termination by his employer, Buick Holdings Pty Ltd trading as DVG Morley City Hyundai. Hanlan claimed that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to Australian employment law. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the employer had a valid reason to terminate the employment contract and if the process was conducted fairly.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the employer had just cause to terminate Hanlan's employment and whether the termination process complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether the employer had followed a fair and reasonable procedure in dismissing Hanlan, and whether the employer had sufficient grounds to justify the termination. Additionally, the Commission examined whether the employer's actions constituted a breach of any legislative provisions pertaining to termination of employment.

In its decision, the Commission found that the employer did not provide adequate evidence to justify the termination of Hanlan's employment. The employer's justification for dismissal was based on allegations of misconduct and poor performance, but the evidence presented was insufficient to substantiate these claims. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the termination process lacked procedural fairness, as the employer did not provide Hanlan with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the termination was unlawful and ordered the employer to reinstate Hanlan to his former position and compensate him for lost wages.

Peter Hanlan v Buick Holdings Pty Ltd T/A DVG Morley City Hyundai

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established