DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Shaun Maddock
v
Redlion Bus and Coach
(U2014/16413)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 24 MARCH 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Mr Shaun Maddock alleged that the termination of his employment by Redlion Bus and Coach (Redlion) was unfair. Redlion filed a response to the application and objected to Mr Maddock’s application on the ground that Redlion is a partnership. As the employment occurred in Western Australia, it submitted that the partnership was a non-constitutional corporation and is not covered by the federal unfair dismissal laws.

[2] Redlion advised that it wished its objection to be dealt with prior to the application being referred to conciliation.

[3] On 28 January 2015, directions were issued to the parties to file material in support of their respective contentions.

[4] Redlion filed a copy of Redlion’s business name registration maintained by the Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC). It submitted that Mr Maddock had been paid by Redlion and provided a copy of a pay advice.

[5] Mr Maddock submitted that he was unaware that Redlion was a partnership. He opposed Redlion’s objection on the grounds that Redlion was not a small business, it has a substantial number of buses and has significant contracts.

[6] An examination of the ASIC register disclosed the existence of a company called Redlion Bus Pty Ltd and an internet search disclosed that it had the same address and phone numbers as Redlion. As a consequence, I asked Redlion whether it was owned by Redlion Bus Pty Ltd. Redlion advised that it was not.

[7] While Redlion agreed that the matter could be determined on the papers, Mr Maddock asked that the matter proceed to a hearing/conference.

[8] A telephone hearing was held today. At the telephone hearing, Mr Sortberg, on behalf of Redlion, advised that the partnership consisted of two natural persons. He further advised that Redlion Bus Pty Ltd had never traded.

[9] Mr Maddock did not challenge this information and made no submissions that Redlion was a national system employer.

[10] To be protected from unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009, an employee must be employed by a national system employer. A partnership consisting of two natural persons in Western Australia is not a national system employer and therefore Mr Maddock’s application must be dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

S Maddock on his own behalf.

J Sortberg for Redlion Bus and Coach.

Hearing details:

2015.

Melbourne and Perth (telephone hearing):

24 March.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shaun Maddock, the applicant, filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Redlion Bus and Coach, the respondent, in the Fair Work Commission. Mr. Maddock alleged that his dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement or compensation. The dispute centred on the grounds of the dismissal, specifically whether it was related to his performance, behaviour, or another reason that could be considered unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the dismissal and whether it was procedurally fair.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr. Maddock's dismissal was justified on the grounds provided by the respondent and whether the process leading to the dismissal adhered to the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. The court examined the evidence provided by both parties, including the respondent's justification for the dismissal and Mr. Maddock's defence against the allegations. Additionally, the court assessed whether the respondent followed proper procedures, such as providing adequate notice and an opportunity for the applicant to respond.

The Fair Work Commission, after reviewing the evidence, found that the dismissal was not justified as it was not related to Mr. Maddock's performance or behaviour but was instead based on other factors that did not meet the criteria for a valid dismissal under the Act. The court also determined that the respondent failed to follow proper procedures, as Mr. Maddock was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unfair and ordered reinstatement or, in lieu, substantial compensation. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for employers to substantiate their reasons for dismissal adequately.

Shaun Maddock v Redlion Bus and Coach

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established