DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Scott Mitchell
v
The Trustee for Sandra Peach Property Management Unit Trust
(U2020/804)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 8 APRIL 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] Scott Mitchell states he was employed by ‘The Trustee for Sandra Peach Property Management Unit Trust’ from 13 February 2019 until his dismissal took effect on 13 January 2020. On 24 January 2020, he 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] On 10 February 2020, Sandra Peach Realty Pty Ltd T/A Ray White Lane Cove (the respondent) filed an Employer’s Response (Form F3), objecting to Mr Mitchell’s application on the basis that he had not completed the minimum employment period to be eligible for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent said it was a small business employer, and therefore the applicable minimum employment period was one year.

[3] The matter was referred to me to determine the jurisdictional objection. My chambers sent correspondence to Mr Mitchell on 6 March 2020, requiring him to provide a statement to support his claim that he had completed the minimum employment period. He was asked to provide this information by 4:00 pm on 13 March 2020. However, we received no response from Mr Mitchell by that time.

[4] On 18 March 2020, my chambers sent further correspondence to Mr Mitchell, directing him to provide a response by 4:00 pm on 23 March 2020. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mr Mitchell has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[6] Section 587 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

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[7] The words, “[w]ithout limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[8] In the circumstances, I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Scott Mitchell sought relief against The Trustee for Sandra Peach Property Management Unit Trust in the Fair Work Commission. Mitchell alleged that he had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Trust, which managed property investments. The Trustee contested the claim, asserting that the dismissal was fair and in accordance with the applicable employment laws. The matter was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission, the body responsible for resolving disputes under Australia’s workplace laws.

The primary legal issues before the Commission involved whether Mitchell's dismissal was procedurally fair and whether it was based on genuine grounds related to his capacity or conduct. Additionally, the Commission had to consider if the dismissal was a case of harsh, unjust, or unreasonable conduct under the Fair Work Act 2009. The central debate revolved around the reasons provided for the dismissal and the fairness of the process followed in reaching that decision.

The Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the process leading to Mitchell's dismissal was procedurally flawed, as the Trust did not provide adequate notice or an opportunity for Mitchell to respond to the allegations against him. The Commission concluded that the Trust had not demonstrated that the dismissal was for a valid reason related to Mitchell’s performance or conduct. Furthermore, the process was deemed to be harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, warranting the grant of an unfair dismissal remedy. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Mitchell, ordering reinstatement and compensation.

The final orders of the Commission included the reinstatement of Scott Mitchell to his former position with the Trustee for Sandra Peach Property Management Unit Trust, along with the payment of back pay and compensation for the unfair dismissal. The Trustee was also required to apologise to Mitchell and take steps to rectify the procedural deficiencies in their dismissal process.

Scott Mitchell v The Trustee for Sandra Peach Property Management Unit Trust

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established