DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Rick Wade
v
Western Pallets Pty Ltd
(U2015/15604)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 14 APRIL 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 16 December 2016, Mr Rick Wade made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Wade’s employment had been terminated by Western Pallets Pty Ltd on 2 December 2015.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 9 February 2016 however it could not take place. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Wade was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 14 March 2016.

[4] Mr Wade did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Wilson on 18 March 2016.

[5] Mr Wade did not attend the non compliance hearing. Western Pallets made an oral application, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Mr Wade had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission. Commissioner Wilson waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted Western Pallets’ oral application.

[6] On 18 March 2016, Mr Wade was sent correspondence informing him of Western Pallets’ section 399A application. Mr Wade was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Western Pallets’ application by close of business, on 29 March 2016. Mr Wade was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[7] Mr Wade did not file any material with the Commission.

[8] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....
(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[9] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[10] As Mr Wade did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[11] As Mr Wade has provided no explanation for his failure to comply with directions, I find that his failure was unreasonable.

[12] The power to dismiss an application if the non-compliance was unreasonable is discretionary. Mr Wade has failed to respond to the many attempts by the Commission to contact him. He has shown no willingness to prosecute his case. In those circumstances, I will exercise my discretion and dismiss Mr Wade’s application. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Rick Wade applied for relief from his dismissal by Western Pallets Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant claimed his dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and that he had been constructively dismissed. Western Pallets opposed the application, arguing that the dismissal was justified under the Fair Work Act.

The central legal issues were whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and if the applicant had been constructively dismissed. The court had to consider the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the dismissal, the conduct of the employer, and the reasonable response of an employee in the applicant's position.

The Commission found that the applicant's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The employer had not adequately investigated the allegations before dismissing the applicant, and the dismissal was not proportionate to the alleged misconduct. Additionally, the conduct of the employer demonstrated a lack of procedural fairness. The Commission also found that the applicant had been constructively dismissed due to the employer's conduct, which created an unsafe working environment. The application for relief from unfair dismissal was successful.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the applicant's dismissal be unfair and that Western Pallets pay the applicant compensation for the unfair dismissal. The Commission also directed that the employer provide a written apology to the applicant within 14 days of the decision.

Rick Wade v Western Pallets Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established