Stacy Langdon v Prestige Universal Mining Pumps Pty Ltd - [2024] FWC 3365

[2024] FWC 3365

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s 365—General protections

Stacy Langdon
v

Prestige Universal Mining Pumps Pty Ltd

(C2024/7471)

COMMISSIONER LIM

PERTH, 3 DECEMBER 2024

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – jurisdictional objection – was the employee dismissed – employee was dismissed – objection dismissed – application to proceed.

Introduction

Mr Stacy Langdon has applied to the Fair Work Commission under s 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Mr Langdon alleges that his former employer Prestige Universal Mining Pumps Pty Ltd dismissed him in contravention of Part 3-1 of the Act. PUMP objects to Mr Langdon’s application on the basis it did not dismiss him.

Before Mr Langdon’s application can proceed, I must determine whether PUMP dismissed him. In Coles Supply Chain Pty Ltd v Milford,[1] the Full Court of the Federal Court held that where there is a question over jurisdiction – as is the case here – the Commission must determine the jurisdictional issue before exercising its powers under s 368 of the Act.[2]

I conducted a determinative conference to hear evidence on the jurisdictional issue on Thursday 28 November 2024. Mr Langdon represented himself and gave evidence in support of his case. PUMP was represented by its Managing Director, Mr Andy Grigg. Mr Grigg and Ms Stacey Bernard, an employee of PUMP, gave evidence.

At the conclusion of the determinative conference, I informed the parties of my decision that that Mr Langdon had been dismissed and that Mr Langdon’s application is within the Commission’s jurisdiction. I then proceeded to conduct a conference to deal with the matter as required by s 368.

My detailed reasons for my decision follow.

What were the events that led to the end of the employment relationship?

There was no contest on the facts of the matter.

PUMP manufactures and services submersible pumps for the mining industry. Mr Langdon has worked for PUMP on and off over several years. Mr Langdon’s most recent period of employment with PUMP started in December 2023 where he was employed as a Company Manager.

Over September 2024, Mr Langdon and Mr Grigg disagreed over the payment of an outstanding invoice. This led to Mr Langdon emailing Mr Grigg his resignation and two weeks’ notice on the morning of Friday 27 September 2024.

After receiving this email, Mr Grigg called Mr Langdon to discuss his resignation. Mr Grigg requested that Mr Langdon continue to fill in the vacant store’s manager position during his notice period. Mr Langdon did not say anything in response to this. After the phone call, Mr Grigg sent Mr Langdon an email summarising the phone call and repeating the direction to fill in the store’s manager position. Mr Langdon replied to Mr Grigg with, “No I’m not confirming that”.

After this communication with Mr Grigg, Mr Langdon told Ms Bernard that he had resigned but that he would be at work on Monday 30 September 2024.

At the end…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stacy Langdon v Prestige Universal Mining Pumps Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] FWC 3365
Decision Date: 3 DECEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stacy Langdon applied to the Fair Work Commission alleging that his former employer, Prestige Universal Mining Pumps Pty Ltd (PUMP), dismissed him in contravention of Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009. PUMP objected to the application, asserting that it did not dismiss Langdon but that he abandoned his employment. The Commission, under s 365 of the Fair Work Act, needed to determine whether PUMP dismissed Langdon before it could proceed with the application.

The Commission considered the definition of "dismissed" under s 386 of the Act, which encompasses both terminations initiated by the employer and resignations forced by employer conduct. The Commission examined the events leading to the end of Langdon's employment, focusing on the interaction between Langdon and PUMP's Managing Director, Andy Grigg, over an outstanding invoice and Langdon's subsequent email of resignation. Langdon did not attend work for two days but indicated a willingness to continue his employment. The Commission concluded that Grigg's email to Langdon, deeming him to have abandoned his employment, was the critical action that terminated Langdon's employment, rather than Langdon's absence. Therefore, the Commission found that PUMP dismissed Langdon, and the application was within its jurisdiction.

Following the determinative conference, the Commission ruled that Langdon had indeed been dismissed by PUMP. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the objection raised by PUMP and allowed Langdon's application to proceed. The Commission's decision ensures that the matter will now be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

Orders