DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Stephen Lewin
v
Return It (QUEENSLAND) Depot Pty Limited T/A ReTurn It
(U2021/182)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 23 MARCH 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 7 January 2021, Stephen Lewin (the applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) against his former employer, Return It (QUEENSLAND) Depot Pty Limited T/A ReTurn It.

[2] A conciliation before a Commission staff conciliator was listed for the matter on 4 February 2021. The applicant did not attend the conciliation.

[3] My chambers sent correspondence to the applicant and his representative on 3 March 2021, directing him to advise us by 4:00pm on 10 March 2021 whether he still pressed his application.

[4] The applicant’s representative replied to my chambers on 10 March 2021 filing a Notice of Representative Ceasing to Act and advised they made 15 points of urgent contact with the applicant since 28 January 2021 and at least 8 of those times were made since the email from chambers dated 3 March 2021. The applicant’s representative further advised the applicant responded to them albeit after hours on 9 March 2021 and made further contact with them on the morning of 10 March 2021 but they were unable to confirm instructions from the applicant. A response from the applicant was not received by my chambers by the 10 March 2021 deadline.

[5] On 11 March 2021, my chambers sent further correspondence to the applicant, directing him to provide a response by 4:00pm on 16 March 2021. He was advised that in the absence of a reply, his application may be dismissed.

[6] To date, the applicant has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[7] 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.”

[8] 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).

[9] 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

In the Fair Work Commission, Stephen Lewin brought an application against Return It (Queensland) Depot Pty Limited T/A ReTurn It, seeking a remedy for an unfair dismissal. The dispute arose from Mr. Lewin's termination of employment, which he argued was unjust and without valid grounds. The case involved an examination of the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and whether the company had just cause to terminate his employment.

The primary legal issues the Commission had to decide included whether the dismissal was procedurally fair, whether the dismissal was based on valid reasons, and if the company had followed the requisite processes as mandated by the Fair Work Act 2009. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine if the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable in the circumstances.

In reaching its decision, the Commission evaluated the evidence presented by both parties regarding the events leading to the dismissal. The Commission found that there were procedural deficiencies in the dismissal process, and that the reasons provided for the termination were not substantiated. The Commission concluded that the dismissal was unjust and ordered the company to reinstate Mr. Lewin to his former position and compensate him for the loss of wages and benefits. This decision underscored the importance of adherence to procedural fairness and the necessity for valid reasons in employment terminations.

Stephen Lewin v Return It (Queensland) Depot Pty Limited T/A ReTurn It

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established