| [2019] FWC 30067 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
phillip oday
v
"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) (188V)
(UD2019-1524)
| COMMISSIONER UATCHAMBERMEMBER | MELBOURNE, 21 AUGUST 2019 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Hearing details:
Final written submissions:
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR200112>
Details
- AGLC
- Phillip Oday v "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" Known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) (188v) [2019] FWC 30067
- Case
- [2019] FWC 30067
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Phillip Oday lodged an application for an unfair dismissal remedy against the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU). The application was heard by Commissioner Uatchamb, member of the Fair Work Commission in Melbourne on 21 August 2019. The application was made pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking relief for an alleged unfair dismissal.
The central legal issue for the court to determine was whether the dismissal of Phillip Oday by the AMWU was unfair, as per section 387 of the Fair Work Act. This required the court to examine the reasons for the dismissal, the process followed, and whether the dismissal complied with the provisions of the Act. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the dismissal was within the scope of a valid reason for termination, whether the process followed was procedurally fair, and whether any procedural errors rendered the dismissal unfair.
In its decision, the court found that the AMWU had valid reasons to dismiss Mr Oday. However, it determined that the process leading to the dismissal was not procedurally fair. The court highlighted that the union had failed to provide Mr Oday with adequate opportunities to respond to the allegations against him, which constituted a procedural error. Consequently, the court ruled that the procedural error rendered the dismissal unfair. The court subsequently ordered the AMWU to reinstate Mr Oday to his former position and compensate him for the period of lost employment.
The central legal issue for the court to determine was whether the dismissal of Phillip Oday by the AMWU was unfair, as per section 387 of the Fair Work Act. This required the court to examine the reasons for the dismissal, the process followed, and whether the dismissal complied with the provisions of the Act. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the dismissal was within the scope of a valid reason for termination, whether the process followed was procedurally fair, and whether any procedural errors rendered the dismissal unfair.
In its decision, the court found that the AMWU had valid reasons to dismiss Mr Oday. However, it determined that the process leading to the dismissal was not procedurally fair. The court highlighted that the union had failed to provide Mr Oday with adequate opportunities to respond to the allegations against him, which constituted a procedural error. Consequently, the court ruled that the procedural error rendered the dismissal unfair. The court subsequently ordered the AMWU to reinstate Mr Oday to his former position and compensate him for the period of lost employment.
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.