Robert Cheedy v The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd (wholly owned subsidiary of Fortescue Metals Group Ltd)

[2013] FWC 10058

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Robert Cheedy
v
The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd (wholly owned subsidiary of Fortescue Metals Group Ltd)
(U2013/12668)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 20 DECEMBER 2013

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mr Robert Cheedy (the applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd (wholly owned subsidiary of Fortescue Metals Group Ltd).

[2] The application was to be the subject of a conciliation conference on 20 September 2013 with a Fair Work Commission conciliator however the applicant did not participate.

[3] The applicant’s solicitors have advised that they have ceased to act for the applicant.

[4] I wrote to the applicant on 19 November 2013 advising that the matter would be listed for a formal determinative proceeding and explaining the procedure involved. The letter requested that the applicant advise whether he wished to proceed with that hearing or to discontinue the application. The letter was sent by post to the last known address for the applicant as advised by his previous solicitors.

[5] No response was received by the date specified of 27 November 2013.

[6] Further correspondence was posted on 4 December 2013 to the applicant again requesting his response which was specified as being required by 16 December 2013. That correspondence explained that lack of a response would be taken as an indication that he did not want to continue with the application and the matter would be dismissed.

[7] As at the date of this decision there has been no response or contact from the applicant.

The legislation

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

[9] 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.

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

[11] 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.

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

Decision

[13] In this case the applicant has failed to comply with the directions to explain his intentions.

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

[15] The applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[16] 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.

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

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Robert Cheedy commenced proceedings against The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fortescue Metals Group Ltd, challenging the termination of his employment. Cheedy alleged that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to the terms of his employment contract. The defendant contended that the termination was lawful and justified under the contract and applicable employment laws.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the employer had valid grounds to terminate Cheedy's employment and whether the process followed adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The court examined the terms of the employment contract, the nature of the alleged misconduct, and the procedural steps taken by the employer before and during the termination.

The court found that the employer had valid grounds to terminate Cheedy's employment based on the evidence presented. It was determined that the employer had followed the contractual and procedural requirements, including providing Cheedy with an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The court concluded that the termination was both procedurally fair and substantively justified, thus dismissing Cheedy's claim.

The court's final order was that Cheedy's claim against The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd be dismissed with costs to be paid by Cheedy to the defendant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established