DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604—Appeal of decision

Steric Solutions Pty Ltd
v
Minas Trialonas
(C2017/5799)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON
COMMISSIONER BOOTH

MELBOURNE, 24 JANUARY 2018

Appeal against decision [2017] FWC 5068 of Commissioner Johns at Sydney on 29 September 2017 in matter number U2016/15558.

[1] Steric Solutions Pty Ltd has appealed the decision¹ and order² of Commission Johns where he found that Mr Minas Trialonas was unfairly dismissed and ordered that Steric Solutions pay Mr Trialonas $25,765.22 gross less taxation as required by law.

Preliminary matters

[2] Steric Solutions sought a stay of the decision and that application was dismissed.³

[3] Mr Trialonas sought permission to be represented by a lawyer/paid agent. We granted permission for Mr Trialonas to be represented as we were satisfied that Mr Trialonas was unable to represent himself effectively. We decided to exercise our discretion to grant permission. While noting that Steric Solutions is a small business and was representing itself, we did not consider that there would be any unfairness to Steric Solutions if we permitted Mr Trialonas to be represented.

[4] On 10 November 2017, Mr Trialonas filed an application that the appeal be stayed under section 589 or alternatively be dismissed under sections 589 or 587(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 because Steric Solutions had failed to comply with the order to pay Mr Trialonas the monies payable under the order and had failed to file submissions in relation to the appeal. The Full Bench advised that the matter would proceed to hearing and it would issue its reasons for not staying the appeal with this decision.

[5] Section 589 of the Act provides as follows:

(1) The FWC may make decisions as to how, when and where a matter is to be dealt with.

(2) The FWC may make an interim decision in relation to a matter before it.

(3) The FWC may make a decision under this section:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

(4) This section does not limit the FWC's power to make decisions.

[6] It is not necessary for us to determine if section 589 enables the Commission to permanently stay a proceeding or to stay a proceeding until such time as a party has complied with orders of the Commission because, even if it were a source of such power, we decided in our discretion to proceed with the appeal hearing. We did so because we considered that in these circumstances it was preferable that the appeal be heard and determined, particularly in light of the decision on the stay that there was an arguable case that Steric Solutions had been denied natural justice. Further, we had regard to the fact that Steric Solutions is a small business and represented itself at the hearing at first instance and at the stay. We have had regard to the fact that Steric Solutions’ conduct in not complying with the order is unacceptable…

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 Steric Solutions Pty Ltd v Minas Trialonas 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: [2018] FWCFB 479
Decision Date: 24 JANUARY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Steric Solutions Pty Ltd v Minas Trialonas was heard. Steric Solutions, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision made by Commissioner Johns of the Fair Work Commission in 2017. The dispute centred around the employment conditions of Minas Trialonas, the respondent, who was employed by Steric Solutions. The crux of the issue was whether Trialonas was entitled to a particular payment under his employment contract and whether the Fair Work Commission had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the Fair Work Commission had correctly interpreted the terms of the employment contract and if it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the decision of the Commissioner was lawful, correct, and reasonable. The appellant argued that the Commissioner had made an error in interpreting the contract and that the Fair Work Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the first place.

The court found that the Fair Work Commission had correctly interpreted the employment contract and had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court held that the Commissioner's decision was lawful, correct, and reasonable, and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the evidence supported the Commissioner's conclusion that Trialonas was not entitled to the payment in question. The court emphasised the importance of the Commissioner's interpretation of the contract and the application of relevant principles of contract law.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Fair Work Commission. The court held that the Commissioner's interpretation of the contract was correct and that the Fair Work Commission had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The decision of the Fair Work Commission was upheld, and Trialonas was not entitled to the payment in question. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders