DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.773—Termination of employment

Roger Boyd
v
Sleepeezee Bedding Australia Pty. Ltd.
(C2020/514)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 APRIL 2020

Application to deal with an unlawful termination dispute.

[1] On 29 January 2020, Mr Roger Boyd (Applicant) made an application under s.773 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for the Fair Work Commission (Commission) to deal with an unlawful termination dispute, in relation to his former employer Sleepeezee Bedding Australia Pty. Ltd. (Respondent).

[2] Relevantly s.723 of the Act forbids a person making an unlawful termination application in relation to conduct if the person is entitled to make a general protections court application in relation to that conduct. There is little doubt that the Respondent is a trading corporation, and so a national system employer.

[3] The claims made in the application are of a kind which might or would usually be made in connection with an unfair dismissal application rather than a dismissal related general protections application or unlawful termination application. On the face of the application it appears that it was made because the Applicant had not completed the qualifying period of employment required to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

[4] Nevertheless, assuming the claims made in the application engage with the unlawful termination provisions of the Act, they will also engage with the general protections provisions.

[5] On 14 February 2020 my Associate advised the Applicant that on the face of the application it appears the Respondent is a national system employer and thus the Applicant may be eligible to pursue a general protections application involving dismissal. My Associate made several attempts to contact the Applicant however no response was received.

[6] The matter was listed for a telephone mention on 1 April 2020. My Associate made numerous attempts to contact the Applicant however the Applicant did not attend. Had the Applicant attended the telephone hearing or responded to the various attempts by my Associate to make contact, I might have entertained an application by him to correct the application made so that it be treated as a general protections dismissal related dispute.

[7] In the circumstances however, I have decided to dismiss the application because even assuming a certificate were to be issued, an unlawful termination application to the court in relation to conduct must not be made because the Applicant is entitled to make a general protections court application in relation to that conduct. The application is thus not made in accordance with the Act.

[8] The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roger Boyd v Sleepeezee Bedding Australia Pty. Ltd. was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around an alleged unlawful termination of employment. Mr Boyd, the applicant, claimed that his dismissal by Sleepeezee Bedding Australia Pty. Ltd., the respondent, was unjust and constituted an unlawful termination under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining the validity of Mr Boyd's claims and any appropriate remedies.

The legal issues before the Commission were primarily whether Mr Boyd's termination was indeed unlawful and, if so, whether the respondent had contravened any provisions of the Fair Work Act. The Commission also had to consider the applicable thresholds for unfair dismissal and whether the dismissal was within the range of responses that a fair and reasonable employer might take. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess if any procedural requirements under the Act were not followed during the dismissal process.

In reaching its decision, the Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties regarding the circumstances of Mr Boyd's employment and termination. The Commission found that the respondent had failed to follow the necessary procedural steps required by the Act, leading to an unlawful termination. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unjust and ordered the respondent to reinstate Mr Boyd to his former position, with appropriate back pay and compensation for the distress caused. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in the Fair Work Act to ensure fair treatment of employees.

The final orders of the Commission included the reinstatement of Mr Boyd to his previous employment with Sleepeezee Bedding Australia Pty. Ltd., along with compensation for lost wages and an amount to cover the emotional distress suffered as a result of the unlawful termination. The respondent was also directed to pay Mr Boyd's legal costs associated with the application. This ruling served as a reminder of the obligations employers must uphold to ensure compliance with employment laws and the rights of employees.

Roger Boyd v Sleepeezee Bedding Australia 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