Ric Belic v DNA Construction Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 496

[2025] FWC 496

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ric Belic
v

DNA Construction Pty Ltd

(U2024/2691)

COMMISSIONER FOX

MELBOURNE, 7 MARCH 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – Allegations of misconduct made – Misconduct found to have occurred – Dismissal found not to be unfair – Application dismissed.

On 7 March 2024, Mr Ric Belic (the Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy, alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with DNA Construction Pty Ltd (DNA).

The application was made within the required 21-day period after the dismissal took effect (s.396(a) of the Act). Mr Belic is protected from unfair dismissal; at the time of his dismissal his gross annual salary was below the high-income threshold; he had completed the minimum employment period; and the DNA Construction Pty Ltd On-Site Enterprise Agreement 2021-2025 (the Agreement) applied to his employment (s.396(b)). The Small Business Fair Dismissal Code did not apply to the dismissal because DNA is not a small business employer. Finally, it has not been claimed by DNA, and nor does the material before me suggest, that the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy (s.396(d)).

Mr Ric Belic was employed by DNA on a full-time basis as a site supervisor and commenced his employment on 29 August 2022. Mr Belic was terminated for misconduct on 16 February 2024. DNA submitted that there were a series of discussions and warnings given to Mr Belic throughout the course of his employment, which ultimately resulted in the termination of his employment for misconduct.

The question I need to answer is whether Mr Belic’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

The matter proceeded to a Determinative Conference. The parties filed material in accordance with Directions and this material was compiled into a Digital Hearing Book. At the Determinative Conference, I determined to accept the entirety of the Digital Hearing Book into evidence. DNA objected to the statements of Mr Joe Gresh and Mr James Dura being admitted into evidence on the basis that their evidence was not material to the issues in dispute. Mr Belic said that this was character evidence. I determined to accept the entirety of the Digital Hearing Book into evidence and advised the parties that I would give the statements of Mr Gresh and Mr Dura the appropriate weight, noting the characterisation of the evidence.

For the reasons given below, I am satisfied that Mr Belic’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Was the Dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable?

Deciding whether a dismissal is harsh, unjust or unreasonable requires an assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances, including the matters set out in s.387 of the Act. I am required to consider each of these, to the extent they are relevant to the factual circumstances before me.[1]

DNA says…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ric Belic v DNA Construction Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ric Belic v DNA Construction Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 496
Case: [2025] FWC 496
Decision Date: 7 MARCH 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ric Belic lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy, alleging that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with DNA Construction Pty Ltd. The Commission was required to determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under s.387 of the Fair Work Act 2009. After reviewing all the evidence, Commissioner Fox concluded that there was a valid reason for the dismissal and that it was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The reasons for the dismissal included multiple incidents of misconduct, including the deliberate recording of incorrect start and finish times, failure to follow instructions regarding the installation of a plastic barrier, and dishonesty regarding the attendance of steel contractors on site. Mr Belic was given numerous opportunities to respond to the allegations and warnings about his conduct. The Commissioner found that Mr Belic's dismissal was justified based on the evidence presented and his continued refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing or show remorse. The application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.

Orders