Ryan Hourigan v H. W. Carpentry Solutions Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 5781

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ryan Hourigan
v
H. W. Carpentry Solutions Pty Ltd
(U2014/5141)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE

SYDNEY, 22 AUGUST 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Mr Hourigan lodged his application pursuant to s394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) on 28 February 2014. The application was filed within the time limit prescribed by the Act. Commissioner Deegan listed the application in Canberra on 23 April 2014 for the hearing of the two jurisdictional objections raised by H.W. Carpentry Solutions Pty Ltd. H.W. Carpentry Solutions Pty Ltd did not appear. The Commissioner relied upon the evidence of Mr Hourigan. The jurisdictional objections of H.W. Carpentry Solutions Pty Ltd were dismissed.

[2] The substantive application was listed before me in Canberra on 28 July 2014. Due to a misunderstanding Mr Hourigan did not attend. H.W. Carpentry Solutions Pty Ltd did not attend or provide any explanation for its non-attendance. Mr Hourigan was given leave to supply material by statutory declaration. He attempted to do this but supplied a statement instead. A copy of that statement has been provided to H.W. Carpentry Solutions Pty Ltd. There has been no response.

[3] I have accepted the history set out in the statement supplied by Mr Hourigan. I have considered the requirements of s387 of the Act. I have applied those requirements to the circumstances surrounding the termination of Mr Hourigan’s employment. I am satisfied that the termination of Mr Hourigan's employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[4] In relation to remedy I have considered the requirements of the Act. I am satisfied that reinstatement is inappropriate. I am satisfied that an award of compensation is appropriate. Mr Hourigan's nett weekly wage whilst in the employ of H.W. Carpentry Solutions Pty Ltd was $680. Mr Hourigan was not given any notice of the termination of his employment. It took him four weeks to find out that his employment had been terminated. He was unemployed for five weeks. In all the circumstances I consider the payment of nine weeks compensation at $850 per week, a sum of $7,650, to be an appropriate amount of compensation. I will issue an order to this effect.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ryan Hourigan v H. W. Carpentry Solutions Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was asked to consider whether the dismissal of the applicant was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Mr. Hourigan, who had been employed by H. W. Carpentry Solutions, was dismissed under a clause in his employment contract that allowed for termination on grounds of gross misconduct. The applicant argued that the dismissal was unfair and sought relief on this basis.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the dismissal was justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the employer had a valid reason for dismissal and whether the process followed was procedurally fair. Mr. Hourigan contested the characterisation of his actions as gross misconduct and argued that the process leading to his termination was flawed.

The Commission found that while Mr. Hourigan had indeed engaged in actions that could be considered misconduct, the employer had not acted within the bounds of procedural fairness in handling the dismissal. The employer had not provided adequate opportunity for the applicant to respond to the allegations against him, nor had they followed the appropriate steps outlined in the employment contract. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was indeed harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. As such, the Fair Work Commission granted the application for relief from unfair dismissal.

The final orders included the reinstatement of Mr. Hourigan to his previous position or, alternatively, compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The employer was also directed to pay the applicant's legal costs. The Commission's decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in the dismissal process and highlights the potential consequences when employers fail to adhere to established procedures.

Ryan Hourigan v H. W. Carpentry Solutions Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established