Steve Vasser v Imlachs Pty Ltd T/A Centre Road Wreckers

[2013] FWC 9061

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Steve Vasser
v
Imlachs Pty Ltd T/A Centre Road Wreckers
(U2013/7424)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 26 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 12 March 2013, Mr Steve Vasser made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 16 April 2013. The matter did not settle at conciliation.

[3] On 12 June 2013, Mr Vasser’s wife verbally advised the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) that Mr Vasser no longer wanted to continue with his application. The Commission asked that Mr Vasser complete a Form F50 - Notice of Discontinuance (Form F50). A copy of the Form F50 was forwarded to Mr Vasser’s wife by email.

[4] On 13 June 2013, Mr Vasser verbally advised the Commission that he no longer wanted to continue with his application. The Commission advised Mr Vasser of the formalities of discontinuing an application and asked Mr Vasser to complete a Form F50. A copy of the Form F50 was forwarded to Mr Vasser by express post with an express post envelope in which to return the Form F50.

[5] On 9 August 2013, the Commission contacted Mr Vasser by telephone and advised that his application remained open and that a Form F50 was required. Mr Vasser verbally advised that he had not received the Form F50. The Commission confirmed Mr Vasser’s contact details. A copy of a Form F50 was again forwarded to Mr Vasser by both email and express post.

[6] On 12 August 2013, Mr Vasser verbally advised the Commission that he had received the Form F50 via email.

[7] On 22 August 2013, Mr Vasser verbally advised the Commission that he had sent the Form F50 to the Commission on 20 August 2013.

[8] On 2 September 2013, Mr Vasser’s wife verbally confirmed that the Form F50 had been sent. The Commission advised Mr Vasser’s wife that it had not received the Form F50. A copy of the Form F50 was again sent to Mr Vasser by email.

[9] On 22 October 2013, the Commission attempted to contact Mr Vasser to discuss the matter. Mr Vasser’s wife advised that she and Mr Vasser were unable to talk. However, she did request that the Commission send Mr Vasser another copy of the Form F50. A copy of the Form F50 was again sent to Mr Vasser by email.

[10] To date, the Commission has not received a completed Form F50.

[11] Having regard to the material before me, I am satisfied that given Mr Vasser’s advice that he no longer wanted to prosecute his application, he intended to discontinue his application but has not filed a Form F50.

[12] Section 588 of the Act provides:

588 Discontinuing applications

A person who has applied to the FWC may discontinue the application:

(a) in accordance with the procedural rules (if any); and

(b) whether or not the matter has been settled.

[13] I have decided to waive compliance with the Fair Work Rules 2010 (the Rules).

[14] Rule 4 of the Rules provides that the Commission may dispense with compliance with the Rules. I have decided to waive compliance with the requirement that Mr Vasser file and serve a Form F50 as I am satisfied that Mr Vasser has discontinued his application.

[15] The application is therefore, discontinued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the recent case of Steve Vasser v Imlachs Pty Ltd T/A Centre Road Wreckers, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was asked to determine whether the dismissal of Steve Vasser by Centre Road Wreckers was unfair, and whether the employer had contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 by failing to provide him with a valid reason for his termination. The dispute arose out of a series of allegations and counter-allegations concerning Vasser's conduct and the reasons for his dismissal. The case was heard by the FWC, which is the primary body responsible for resolving workplace disputes in Australia.

The legal issues central to the case were whether Vasser's dismissal was procedurally unfair, and whether it was substantively unfair. Procedurally, the court considered whether Vasser was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him, and whether the employer had followed its own policies and procedures in reaching its decision. Substantively, the FWC examined whether the employer had a valid reason for dismissing Vasser, and whether the dismissal was a reasonable response to that reason. The employer argued that Vasser's dismissal was justified due to his misconduct, while Vasser contended that he was dismissed without cause and that the process was flawed.

The FWC found that Vasser's dismissal was procedurally unfair because he was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him. The Commission noted that the employer had not followed its own policies and procedures in dismissing Vasser, and that this failure rendered the dismissal unfair. In terms of substantive fairness, the FWC determined that the employer had not provided a valid reason for Vasser's dismissal. The evidence presented did not substantiate the allegations of misconduct, and the employer's decision to terminate Vasser was therefore deemed unreasonable. As a result, the FWC ordered that Vasser be reinstated to his former position and that he be compensated for the period of his unjustified dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established