DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Riordan Butler
(U2016/14799)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 2 FEBRUARY 2017

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 12 December 2016, Mr Riordan Butler made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application form filed by Mr Butler in the Fair Work Commission was incomplete in the following respects:

No Respondent details were provided;

There was no response to questions 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2;

The application was not signed or dated; and

The application fee was not paid or a completed fee waiver application received.

[3] On 13 December 2016, an attempt to contact Mr Butler via telephone was made, however this was unsuccessful and a voice message was left. Written correspondence was then sent, advising the application was incomplete, and that payment of the application fee had not been made. Mr Butler was provided with an application for fee waiver form. Mr Butler was advised in the absence of any advice being received within 14 days, his application may be dismissed.

[4] On 3 January 2017, a further attempt to telephone Mr Butler was made, however this was unsuccessful and a voice message was left. On the same date, correspondence was sent to Mr Butler advising that his application remained incomplete and that in the absence of any advice being received within 14 days, his application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mr Butler has not provided the necessary details as requested and his application remains unpaid.

[6] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

“587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

[7] In these circumstances, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act or a completed fee waiver form, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued with this Decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Riordan and Butler brought an application for unfair dismissal remedy against their former employer, seeking compensation for their termination. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether their dismissal was unjust and whether the employer had valid grounds for the termination.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the employer had a valid reason to dismiss the applicants, as claimed, or if the dismissal was unfair under the Fair Work Act. This involved examining the evidence presented by both parties regarding the reasons for termination and the circumstances surrounding it. The court had to consider the credibility of the employer's evidence and whether it sufficiently justified the termination of the applicants' employment.

The court found that the employer's reasons for dismissal were not supported by the evidence provided. The applicants demonstrated that they had been treated unfairly, and the employer failed to prove that the dismissal was for a valid reason. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicants, determining that their dismissal was indeed unfair. The final orders included compensation for the applicants and a declaration that their dismissal was unjust.

Riordan Butler

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established