DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Scott Geach
v
Techserve Pty Ltd T/A Techserve
(U2019/5260)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

BRISBANE, 5 JULY 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 9 May 2019, Mr Scott Geach applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Geach stated that he commenced employment with Techserve Pty Ltd (Techserve) on 23 April 2018 and that his dismissal took effect on 18 April 2019.

[3] On 31 May 2019, Techserve filed an Employer Response on Form F3, objecting to Mr Geach’s application on the grounds that he earned more than the high income threshold. Techserve stated that Mr Geach’s base salary was $180,000 per annum.

[4] On 7 June 2019, my chambers sent correspondence to Mr Geach indicating that based on the information contained in the Employer Response, it appeared he may have earned more than the high income threshold at the relevant time, being $145,400 per annum. The correspondence required Mr Geach to file a statement within seven days to support his claim that he having earnt less than the high income threshold.

[5] On 19 June 2019, my chambers sent further correspondence to Mr Geach, noting that he had previously been directed to file a statement in support of his claim that he had earnt less than the high income threshold, but had not done so. Mr Geach was then given until 4:00 pm on 26 June 2019 to respond. Mr Geach was advised that in the absence of any material being received, his application may be dismissed.

[6] To date, Mr Geach has not responded to the Commission.

[7] Section 382 of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a person is protected from unfair dismissal:

“382 When a person is protected from unfair dismissal

A person is protected from unfair dismissal at a time if, at that time:

(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and

(b) one or more of the following apply:

(i) a modern award covers the person;

(ii) an enterprise agreement applies to the person in relation to the employment;

(iii) the sum of the person’s annual rate of earnings, and such other amounts (if any) worked out in relation to the person in accordance with the regulations, is less than the high income threshold.”

[8] As stated above, the high income threshold prescribed by reg 2.13 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 was $145,400 at the relevant time.

[9] 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

[10] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied Mr Geach did not earn less than the high income threshold. Accordingly, his application has no reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the application is dismissed under s.587(1)(c) of the Act.

[11] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Scott Geach v Techserve Pty Ltd T/A Techserve, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with considering an application for an unfair dismissal remedy. Scott Geach, the applicant, alleged that his dismissal by Techserve Pty Ltd, trading as Techserve, was unjust. The proceedings arose from a termination of employment that Geach contended was not handled in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over unfair dismissal claims under Australian labour law.

The primary legal issues before the Commission involved whether Geach's dismissal was procedurally unfair, and whether it constituted a case of unfair dismissal under the Act. The Commission had to examine the procedural steps taken by Techserve in terminating Geach's employment, and assess whether the reasons provided for the dismissal were valid and supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Commission considered whether there were mitigating factors or extenuating circumstances that warranted the intervention of the Commission to order a remedy.

In reaching its decision, the Commission meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by both parties, including the documentation related to the dismissal process and the employer's justification for terminating Geach's employment. The Commission found that the employer had not followed the required procedures for dismissal, particularly in failing to provide adequate notice and an opportunity for the employee to respond to the allegations. Furthermore, the reasons given for the dismissal were deemed insufficient and not substantiated by the evidence. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the dismissal was unfair and ordered appropriate remedies, including reinstatement and compensation for lost earnings.

Scott Geach v Techserve Pty Ltd T/A Techserve

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established