Prince Rajput v QAL Technologies Pty Ltd
[2023] FWC 2617
•10 OCTOBER 2023
| [2023] FWC 2617 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Prince Rajput
v
QAL Technologies Pty Ltd
(U2023/6088)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN | MELBOURNE, 10 OCTOBER 2023 |
Unfair dismissal claim – dispute about meaning of terms of settlement – application dismissed
The following is an edited version of a decision delivered on transcript earlier today, to which I have added a brief introduction and summary of the parties’ arguments. Mr Prince Rajput has made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). The respondent, QAL Technologies Pty Ltd (QAL), objects to the Commission determining that application because it contends that the parties reached a settlement agreement, which resolved the application and now constitutes a bar to its determination.
In early September 2023, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations which took place substantially by email correspondence. On 8 September 2023, QAL sent to Mr Rajput a letter that was expressed to be a deed of settlement and release, which set out the terms of an offer. It stated that Mr Rajput accepted an ‘ex gratia payment’ of ‘$30,000 gross’ in full and final settlement of all claims that he may have against QAL and that he released the company from any liability relating to his employment and its termination. At the end of the letter, under a heading ‘Acceptance of offer’, the letter stated that Mr Rajput had read the terms and accepted the offer, and that he had had an opportunity to receive legal advice. Mr Rajput signed the document electronically by ‘DocuSign’ on 11 September 2023.
At the hearing on 10 October 2023, Mr Rajput contended that QAL had not complied with the settlement agreement. He said that on 18 September 2023, he wrote to QAL objecting that he had received only $20,700, instead of the $30,000 referred to in the agreement. QAL told him that the $30,000 was a gross amount, from which tax was required to be deducted. Mr Rajput responded, insisting that he be paid a net amount of $30,000, and noting that he had earlier requested the company to remove the words ‘less tax’ from the draft document because he believed that the payment was not subject to taxation. The company had then removed the words ‘less tax’ from the document. Mr Rajput said that he was entitled to a payment of $30,000, and because he had not received it, the Commission should proceed to determine his unfair dismissal application.
QAL contended that the settlement agreement had resolved Mr Rajput’s unfair dismissal claim and that the Commission should now dismiss the application. It said that the company had complied with its obligations under the settlement agreement, as the payment of $30,000 was stated to be a gross amount. It submitted that, although the words ‘less tax’ were removed from the draft settlement document, that did not mean that tax was not payable and it did not mean that the $30,000 was now a net amount. During negotiations, Mr Rajput had expressed the view that an ex gratia payment was not subject to tax, but the company did not agree with this. QAL said that its obligation under the settlement agreement was to pay Mr Rajput a gross amount of $30,000, and that is what it did.
It is clear that the parties agreed to settle Mr Rajput’s unfair dismissal application on the basis of the payment referred to in the settlement agreement. There is now a dispute between the parties about the meaning of the agreement. But it is not the Commission’s role to supervise the parties’ performance of their contractual obligations. If Mr Rajput believes the settlement agreement entitles him to payment of a gross amount of $30,000, he can sue for breach of contract in a court. The Commission has no power to determine such a claim. However, I am content to offer the parties my opinion on the matter, which is that the reference to a gross payment can only mean that tax will be deducted.
Section 587(1)(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may dismiss an application that has no reasonable prospects of success. In my view, Mr Rajput’s unfair dismissal application cannot succeed because he agreed to settle it for a gross payment of $30,000. The settlement agreement is a complete answer to his application. It cured any unfairness in his dismissal. It is well established that the Commission may have regard to settlement agreements in considering whether to dismiss an application under s 587 of the Act (see Australian Postal Corporation v Gorman [2011] FCA 975 at [31]-[33]). The application has no reasonable prospect of success. It is appropriate to dismiss the matter under s 587(1)(c), and I do so.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
P. Rajput for himself
L. Parks for QAL Technologies Pty Ltd
Hearing details:
2023
Melbourne
10 October
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR767045>
0