DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Ryan Twomey
v
Chris Bell Removals
(U2015/3353)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 24 APRIL 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 23 February 2015, Mr Ryan Twomey made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Twomey did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 24 February 2015, a Fair Work Commission staff member left a message for Mr Twomey to return the Commission’s call regarding payment of the filing fee and that he may not have served the minimum employment period. Mr Twomey had advised that he commenced employment on 20 August 2014 and he was dismissed on 17 February 2015.

[4] On 26 February 2015, Mr Twomey was advised by email correspondence that his application required payment of the filing fee or a completed waiver form if he wished to proceed with his application. The correspondence said that in the absence of any advice from Mr Twomey within 14 days, his application may be dismissed.

[5] Section 395 of the Act, which deals with application fees, provides:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

[6] On 3 March 2015, the Commission contacted Mr Twomey in relation to the correspondence dated 26 February 2015. Mr Twomey was advised he needed to complete an application for fee waiver to enable his application to progress. Mr Twomey advised he would go to the library where he could access a computer in the next few days. It was also suggested Mr Twomey seek legal advice from Hobart Community Legal Centre (HCLC) in relation to the minimum employment period. The contact number of HCLC was provided to Mr Twomey.

[7] As no payment or correspondence was received, Mr Twomey was again contacted on 25 March 2015 and a message was left for him to contact the registry of the Commission. No response was received from Mr Twomey and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[8] 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

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[9] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act, the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to section 587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case of Ryan Twomey v Chris Bell Removals involved an application for relief from unfair dismissal. The applicant, Ryan Twomey, sought to overturn a decision by the respondent, Chris Bell Removals, to terminate his employment. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central issue was whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the respondent had valid reasons for the dismissal, if the dismissal process was procedurally fair, and if the respondent could have reasonably taken any alternative action.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including the circumstances leading up to the termination and the respondent's justification for the decision. It found that the respondent had a valid reason related to the applicant's conduct, which was deemed serious enough to warrant termination. However, the court also considered the fairness of the process and whether the respondent had reasonably explored alternative options before resorting to dismissal. Ultimately, the court concluded that while the dismissal was justified, the process was not handled in a manner that was fair to the applicant.

As a result, the Fair Work Commission found that the dismissal was unfair. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant compensation equivalent to four weeks' remuneration and to reinstate him to his former position. Additionally, the respondent was directed to apologise to the applicant for the manner in which the dismissal was conducted. This decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness in employment terminations, even when the underlying reason for dismissal is valid.

Ryan Twomey v Chris Bell Removals

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established