DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Stephen Pitt
v
Protector AutoGlass
(U2020/15736)

COMMISSIONER WILSON

MELBOURNE, 21 APRIL 2021

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – binding settlement agreement reached –application dismissed pursuant to s.587.

[1] Mr Stephen Pitt (the Applicant) has applied for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

[2] I have determined to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587(1)(c), on account of there being a binding settlement agreement which extinguishes the original claim such that it has no reasonable prospects of success. The reasons for this decision follow.

Background

[3] The application was filed in the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) on 9 December 2020.

[4] The matter was listed for an Extension of Time Hearing before me on 11 January 2021. I formed the view during the Hearing that the parties may benefit from a Member Assisted Conciliation to assist to resolve the matters in dispute, as such I adjourned the Hearing and convened a Member Assisted Conciliation. At the Member Assisted Conciliation the parties agreed to resolve the matter on the basis of a confidential settlement.

[5] The Applicant provided signed Terms of Settlement to the Commission and Protector AutoGlass (the Respondent) on 13 January 2021. The Respondent provides signed Terms of Settlement to the Commission and to the Applicant on 14 January 2021.

[6] Given the length of time since the signing of the Terms of Settlement my Chambers invited a Notice of Discontinuance from the Applicant on 15 February 2021. No response was received.

Consideration

[7] Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:

“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] In Masters v Cameron the High Court of Australia has found a binding contract will exist:

“Where parties who have been in negotiation reach agreement upon terms of a contractual nature and also agree that the matter of their negotiation shall be dealt with by a formal contract, the case may belong to any of three cases. It may be one in which the parties have reached finality in arranging all the terms of their bargain and intend to be immediately bound to the performance of those terms, but at the same…

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 Stephen Pitt v Protector AutoGlass 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: [2021] FWC 2135
Decision Date: 21 APRIL 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Stephen Pitt brought a claim against Protector AutoGlass for an unfair dismissal remedy. Pitt alleged that his dismissal was unjust and sought relief under the Fair Work Act 2009. Protector AutoGlass contested the claim, asserting that the dismissal complied with all legal requirements and was fair under the circumstances.

The primary legal issues before the court involved whether Pitt's dismissal was indeed unfair, and if so, whether the binding settlement agreement reached between the parties should be honoured. The court had to determine if the settlement agreement was valid and if it negated Pitt's right to seek an unfair dismissal remedy. The court also needed to assess the enforceability of the agreement under the Fair Work Act.

The court found that the binding settlement agreement reached between the parties was valid and enforceable. The terms of the agreement clearly addressed the issues Pitt raised in his unfair dismissal claim and provided a comprehensive resolution. Consequently, the court held that the settlement agreement precluded Pitt from pursuing his unfair dismissal claim further. In accordance with section 587 of the Fair Work Act, the court dismissed Pitt's application, affirming the finality of the settlement agreement.

Orders