DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Richard Scott
v
Legeneering Australia Pty Ltd
(U2020/7228)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 23 JULY 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mr Richard Scott (the Applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is Legeneering Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The Respondent objects to the application on the ground that the Applicant’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy.

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

[4] Immediately thereafter on 26 June 2020 the parties were advised in writing as to the future requirements to provide witness statements and submissions for arbitration.

[5] Correspondence was sent to the parties on 1 July 2020 with specific directions to each party. This was sent to the Applicant by email. The Applicant was directed to provide written materials in support of the application by 16 July 2020. The correspondence advised a failure by the Applicant to comply with the directions could result in the application being dismissed.

[6] On the 2 July 2020 my associate spoke to the Applicant and confirmed that the Applicant understood this matter was listed for hearing on 1 September 2020 and the requirements to comply with the Commission’s directions.

[7] Nothing was received from the Applicant by 16 July 2020.

[8] A follow up letter was emailed to the Applicant on 17 July 2020 regarding the failure to comply with the Commission’s direction and directing that the materials be filed and served by 21 July 2020. The letter advised a further failure to comply with the Commission’s directions would be grounds for the application to be dismissed without further notice.

[9] As at the date of this decision the Applicant has not filed any materials as directed nor otherwise contacted the Commission.

The legislation

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

[11] 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.

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

[13] 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.

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

Decision

[15] In this case the Applicant has failed to comply with the Commission’s directions and was on notice that non-compliance would be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

[16] The Applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[17] The Respondent employer is also entitled to a fair go including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time.

[18] 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.

[19] An order [PR721190] to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Richard Scott v Legeneering Australia Pty Ltd involved an employee who sought an unfair dismissal remedy from the Fair Work Commission. The employee, Richard Scott, alleged that his dismissal by Legeneering Australia Pty Ltd was unjust and sought reinstatement or compensation. The dispute was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal.

The legal issues at the heart of this case centred on whether the employee's dismissal was indeed unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the employer had just cause for termination and if the process followed was procedurally fair. The central contention was whether the employer's actions were consistent with the principles of procedural fairness and whether the dismissal was justified by the employee's conduct.

In its reasoning, the Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the employer's justification for the dismissal and the employee's response. The Commission found that the employer failed to adequately justify the dismissal, particularly in light of the procedural steps taken or omitted. The employer's process lacked transparency and did not afford the employee a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unfair, as it contravened the principles of procedural fairness and was not based on a valid reason.

As a result of this finding, the Fair Work Commission ordered that Richard Scott be reinstated to his position with Legeneering Australia Pty Ltd, and that he be compensated for the period of lost earnings. Additionally, the employer was directed to apologise to the employee for the unfair dismissal.

Richard Scott v Legeneering Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

The legislation

Decision

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established