Shane Ashley Anderson v Estate of the Late Ormond Murdoch Mcleod, Estate of the Late Maree Carol Mcleod, Jane Maree Mcleod & Lucy Clare Mcleod Family Partnership

[2023] FWC 1200

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Shane Ashley Anderson
v

Estate Of The Late Ormond Murdoch Mcleod, Estate Of The Late Maree Carol Mcleod, Jane Maree Mcleod & Lucy Clare Mcleod - Family Partnership

(U2023/1406)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 19 MAY 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.603 – revocation of decision PR762091 and order PR762092 – application to be reallocated.

On the 22^nd of February 2023, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) received an application from Shane Ashley Anderson (the applicant) for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), in respect of his employment with Estate Of The Late Ormond Murdoch Mcleod, Estate Of The Late Maree Carol Mcleod, Jane Maree Mcleod & Lucy Clare Mcleod - Family Partnership (the respondent).

On the 17^th of March 2023, the respondent filed an F3 – Employer’s Response Form to the F2 - Unfair Dismissal Application, which contained a different legal business name to the one mentioned by the applicant in his F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application.

On the 27^th of March 2023, correspondence was sent to the applicant addressing the issues with the legal business name discrepancy and he was advised to respond by the 3^rd of April 2023.

On the 19^th of May 2023, a decision and order were published to dismiss the application from any further proceedings as no response was received.

After the decision was published on the 19^th of May 2023, it had come to my attention that the Applicant did in fact respond to the correspondence sent on the 27^th of March 2023, and do so on the 30^th of March 2023.
In light of the above information, I have decided to revoke the decision and order published on the 19^th of May 2023 pursuant to s.603 of the Act. An order to that effect will be issued with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shane Ashley Anderson lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal, following his employment termination by the Estate of the Late Ormond Murdoch McLeod, the Estate of the Late Maree Carol McLeod, Jane Maree McLeod and Lucy Clare McLeod – Family Partnership. The respondent had filed a response to the unfair dismissal application, but this included a different legal business name than that mentioned by the applicant. The Commission brought this discrepancy to the applicant's attention and requested a response by a certain date. When no response was received, the Commission dismissed the application. However, it subsequently came to light that the applicant had indeed responded to the correspondence sent by the Commission. This led the Vice President to revoke the decision and order published dismissing the application.

The key legal issue before the Vice President was whether the application should be dismissed due to the lack of a timely response to the legal business name discrepancy, or whether it should be reconsidered in light of the applicant's response. The Vice President considered the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 which allow the Commission to revoke a decision if it was made in error or without proper consideration of relevant information. In this case, the Commission had not been aware of the applicant's response at the time it dismissed the application.

The Vice President concluded that the Commission's decision to dismiss the application was made in error, as it did not properly consider the applicant's response to the legal business name discrepancy. The Vice President therefore revoked the decision and order dismissing the application, and ordered that the application be reallocated for further consideration. This outcome reflects the importance of ensuring that all relevant information is considered before making a decision, and the need for the Commission to rectify errors when they come to light.

The Vice President's decision and order to revoke the previous decision and reallocate the application for further consideration represents the final outcome of this matter. The applicant's application for a remedy for unfair dismissal will now be reconsidered by the Commission, taking into account all relevant information and submissions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established