DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Phillip Harris
v
Greater Monaro ECM T/A Paladin Group
(U2019/9212)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 17 OCTOBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 19 August 2019, Mr Phillip Harris applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). He named his former employer as ‘Greater Monaro ECM T/A Paladin Group’.

[2] On 27 August 2019, an entity named Paladin Solutions PNG LTD (Paladin PNG) filed a Form F3 (Employer Response to Unfair Dismissal Application). Paladin PNG objected to Mr Harris’ application on the bases that:

• it was his former employer, not ‘Greater Monaro ECM T/A Paladin Group’;

• it was not a national system employer, and therefore Mr Harris was not protected from unfair dismissal in respect of his employment by Paladin PNG; and

• Mr Harris earned approximately $206,000 per annum, which is more than the high income threshold of $148,700 at the relevant time.

[3] On 27 September 2019, my chambers sent correspondence to Mr Harris, directing him to respond to the non-national system employer and high income threshold objections that Paladin PNG had raised.

[4] On 8 October 2019, my chambers sent further correspondence to Mr Harris, noting that he had not responded as directed, giving him until 4:00 pm on 11 October 2019 to respond, and advising that if he did not respond, his application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mr Harris has not responded to the Commission.

[6] Section 587 of the Act provides:

“587 Dismissing applications

(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

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[7] The words, “[w]ithout limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[8] In the circumstances, I have decided to dismiss this application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

[9] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicant, Phillip Harris, filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy against Greater Monaro ECM T/A Paladin Group, his former employer. The primary contention was whether Mr. Harris' dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issues revolved around the legitimacy and procedural fairness of the dismissal, specifically whether the employer had just cause and followed proper procedures in terminating Mr. Harris' employment. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the employer had a valid reason for dismissal and whether the dismissal process was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission examined the employer's justification for the dismissal, the procedural steps taken, and the overall fairness of the decision. The employer argued that the dismissal was based on misconduct and a breach of the employment contract. However, the Commission found that the employer did not adequately substantiate the misconduct claims and that the process leading to the dismissal lacked procedural fairness. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unjust and ordered for reinstatement and compensation.

The final orders included the reinstatement of Mr. Harris to his previous position and the payment of compensation for the period of lost employment, along with interest. The employer was also directed to cover the costs associated with the application.

Phillip Harris v Greater Monaro ECM T/A Paladin Group

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established