Legal Research
Cases
Stedman v Transdev NSW Pty Ltd T/A Transdev Buses

Stedman v Transdev NSW Pty Ltd T/A Transdev Buses

Case [2015] FWCFB 1877 20 March 2015

Appeal

Limitation Periods

Jurisdiction

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2015] FWCFB 1877

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Mr Gregory Stedman
v
Transdev NSW Pty Ltd T/A Transdev Buses
(C2014/7659)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE
COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 20 MARCH 2015

Appeal against order [PR557215] of 30 October 2014 and decisions [2014] FWC 7893 of 7 November 2014 and 15 December 2014 issued by Senior Deputy President Drake at Sydney in matter number U2014/1950 re extension of time.

[1] This is an application for permission to appeal and, if granted, an appeal against a decision of Senior Deputy President Drake in which she refused to grant an extension of time for the lodgement of an application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[2] Mr Stedman, the appellant, filed an application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) in respect of the termination of his employment with Transdev NSW Pty Ltd (Transdev or the respondent). He filed the application himself and did not have a representative to assist him. In his application, he indicated that, on 9 May 2014, he was notified of his dismissal and that the dismissal took effect on that day. If that was so, his application under s.394, which was filed on 2 June 2014, was outside the 21-day time limit in s.394(2) of the Act. The parties proceeded on the basis that his application was filed two days out of time. The respondent opposed the application for an extension of time and Senior Deputy President Drake listed the matter for hearing. On appeal, it was apparent that in fact the appellant’s dismissal took effect on 10 May 2014 and his s.394 application was filed in time. We will now refer to the relevant legislation and some background to put this into context.

Relevant legislation

[3] Section 394 of the Act is in these terms:

“394 Application for unfair dismissal remedy

(1) A person who has been dismissed may apply to the FWC for an order under Division 4 granting a remedy.

Note 1: Division 4 sets out when the FWC may order a remedy for unfair dismissal.
Note 2: For application fees, see section 395.
Note 3: Part 6-1 may prevent an application being made under this Part in relation to a dismissal if an application or complaint has been made in relation to the dismissal other than under this Part.
(2) The application must be made:
(a) within 21 days after the dismissal took effect; or
(b) within such further period as the FWC allows under subsection (3).
(3) The FWC may allow a further period for the application to be made by a person under subsection (1) if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:
(a) the reason for the delay; and
(b) whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect; and
(c) any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal; and
(d) prejudice to the…

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.

Continue reading Stedman v Transdev NSW Pty Ltd T/A Transdev Buses

Details

AGLC: Stedman v Transdev NSW Pty Ltd T/A Transdev Buses [2015] FWCFB 1877
Case: [2015] FWCFB 1877
Decision Date: 20 MARCH 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stedman v Transdev NSW Pty Ltd T/A Transdev Buses involved an appeal against an order issued by the Fair Work Commission, concerning an extension of time for filing an application. The applicant, Stedman, sought to appeal against the order and decisions made by Senior Deputy President Drake at Sydney, which pertained to an application for an extension of time in a matter before the Commission. The respondent in the case was Transdev NSW Pty Ltd, trading as Transdev Buses. The primary dispute revolved around whether the Commission had erred in granting the extension of time and whether the appeal against the decisions should be allowed.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically focusing on the provisions relating to the extension of time for filing an application. The court had to determine whether the Commission had exercised its discretion correctly in granting the extension and whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant such an extension. Additionally, the court examined the procedural fairness and whether the applicant had been afforded a fair opportunity to present their case before the Commission.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the principles governing extensions of time under the Fair Work Act. It considered the relevant statutory provisions, case law, and the context in which the application for the extension was made. The court found that the Commission had exercised its discretion appropriately and had not erred in granting the extension. The applicant had not demonstrated that the Commission's decision was unreasonable or that it had breached any principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the Commission were upheld.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and affirm the decisions of the Fair Work Commission. The court held that the Commission's decisions regarding the extension of time were correct and that no grounds for appeal had been established. The applicant's appeal was therefore unsuccessful, and the Commission's orders remained in effect.

Orders