Rodney Roach v Pacific National Services Pty Ltd - [2022] FWC 103

[2022] FWC 103

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Rodney Roach

Pacific National Services Pty Ltd

(U2021/8860)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 21 JANUARY 2022

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – valid reason for dismissal – dismissal not harsh, unjust or unreasonable – application dismissed.

Introduction

Mr Rodney Roach was employed by Pacific National Services Pty Ltd (PN) as a train driver until his dismissal on 13 September 2021. Mr Roach was paid five weeks’ pay in lieu of notice on his dismissal. Mr Roach contends that his dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. PN denies those allegations.

Initially Mr Roach sought the remedies of reinstatement and backpay. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Roach’s representative informed the Fair Work Commission (Commission) that he was no longer seeking reinstatement and backpay and was instead seeking the remedy of compensation for his alleged unfair dismissal.

I heard Mr Roach’s unfair dismissal case against PN on 17 January 2022. Mr Roach gave evidence in support of his case. He also tendered a statement made by Mr Gregory Cameron of the RTBU, who was not required for cross examination. PN adduced evidence from Mr Peter Cowan, Manager Operations Gracemere depot (Qld) for PN.

Initial matters to be considered

Section 396 of the Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) (Act) sets out four matters which I am required to decide before I consider the merits of the application.

There is no dispute between the parties and I am satisfied on the evidence that:

(a)Mr Roach’s application for unfair dismissal was made within the period required in s 394(2) of the Act;

(b)Mr Roach was a person protected from unfair dismissal;

(c)the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code did not apply to Mr Roach’s dismissal; and

(d)Mr Roach’s dismissal was not a genuine redundancy.

Was the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable?

Section 387 of the Act requires that I take into account the matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (h) of the section in considering whether Mr Roach’s dismissal was harsh, unjust and/or unreasonable. I will address each of these matters in turn below.

Valid reason (s 387(a))

General principles

It is necessary to consider whether the employer had a valid reason for the dismissal of the employee, although it need not be the reason given to the employee at the time of the dismissal.[1] In order to be “valid”, the reason for the dismissal should be “sound, defensible and well founded”[2] and should not be “capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced.”[3]

The Commission will not stand in the shoes of the employer and determine what the Commission would do if it was in the position of the employer.[4] The question the Commission must address is whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the employee’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees).[5]

In cases relating to alleged conduct, the Commission must make a finding, on…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rodney Roach v Pacific National Services Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] FWC 103
Decision Date: 21 JANUARY 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rodney Roach against Pacific National Services Pty Ltd involved an application for relief from an unfair dismissal. The applicant, Rodney Roach, sought to challenge the termination of his employment by the respondent, Pacific National Services Pty Ltd. The Federal Circuit Court was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was fair and justified under the relevant legislation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of Rodney Roach was justified and whether it complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to consider if the dismissal was for a valid reason and whether it was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The respondent argued that the dismissal was justified due to misconduct and that it did not constitute an unfair dismissal.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the dismissal. It found that the respondent had provided substantial evidence to support the claim of misconduct by the applicant. The court concluded that the dismissal was based on a valid reason and was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court found that the respondent had acted fairly and in accordance with the law in terminating the applicant's employment. Consequently, the application for relief from the dismissal was dismissed.

Orders