DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Steven Perrine
v
Personalised Freight Management
(U2014/9057)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 20 FEBRUARY 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Mr Steven Perrine alleged that the termination of his employment by Personalised Freight Management was unfair.

[2] GPI (General) Pty Ltd trading as Personalised Freight Management filed a Form F3 and objected to the application on the basis that Mr Perrine was not employed by Personalised Freight Management but was employed by All States Personnel Pty Ltd, a labour hire company.

[3] Mr Perrine filed an application to change the name of the Respondent to All States Personnel. All States Personnel opposed the application. Mr Perrine submitted that prior to his application to amend being determined, the objection by Personalised Freight Management should be resolved.

[4] Both companies were notified of the hearing and Mr Chris McArdle represented both companies at the hearing.

[5] At the hearing Mr Perrine gave evidence that he applied for a job with Personalised Freight Management over the internet. 1 He sent his CV in and was contacted by Mr Peter MacDougall who interviewed him the next day and offered him a job and he started work the next day.2

[6] Mr Perrine gave evidence that there was no mention of All States Personnel at the interview. 3 He said the first he was aware of All States Personnel was when a member of staff of the Fair Work Commission contacted him after he lodged his application for an unfair dismissal remedy.4

[7] Mr Perrine said he checked his payslips each week but did not notice that they referred to All States Personnel. 5 Mr Perrine was issued with an identity card with the initials PFM.6 He was never issued an identity card by All States Personnel7 and he wore a uniform that had the PFM logo on it as did his high visibility vest. 8

[8] He said he did not sign any documents until after his first day of work 9 but he did not have a copy of the documents he signed.

[9] In cross examination Mr Perrine accepted that he signed a tax declaration form but he could not remember whether it referred to All States Personnel. 10

[10] He accepted that he signed a document on 2 June 2014 which was on All States Personnel letterhead. 11 That letter confirmed an increase in his rate of pay and advised that all other terms of employment would remain unchanged. It was signed by Mr Glen Stewart, the Chief Executive Officer.12

[11] Mr Perrine did not challenge that he received PAYG statement with All States Personnel listed at the payer’s name. 13

[12] He also accepted that the Child Support Agency named his employer as All States Personnel. 14

[13] In cross examination he denied being told at the interview that his employer was All States Personnel. 15

[14] Mr Ray Hughes from All States Personnel gave evidence…

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 Steven Perrine v Personalised Freight Management 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: [2015] FWC 1255
Decision Date: 20 FEBRUARY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steven Perrine applied for relief from his dismissal by Personalised Freight Management, which was heard by the Fair Work Commission. Mr. Perrine contended that his dismissal was unjust and sought reinstatement or compensation. The dispute centered on whether the dismissal complied with the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning the procedural fairness and substantive fairness of the termination. The court had to determine if Personalised Freight Management followed the appropriate procedures when dismissing Mr. Perrine and whether the decision to terminate was fair given the circumstances.

The central legal issues were whether the company adhered to the required procedural steps when dismissing Mr. Perrine and if the dismissal was justified on substantive grounds. The Commission examined if the employer provided adequate notice, allowed for a fair opportunity for the employee to respond, and if the dismissal was a reasonable response to the situation. Additionally, the court assessed whether there were mitigating factors or if the dismissal was an appropriate action under the circumstances.

In delivering its decision, the Commission found that Personalised Freight Management did not follow the necessary procedural steps when dismissing Mr. Perrine. The employer failed to provide adequate notice and did not allow for a proper opportunity for Mr. Perrine to respond to the allegations against him. The Commission further determined that the dismissal was not justified on substantive grounds as the employer did not prove that the termination was a reasonable response to the situation. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favor of Mr. Perrine, ordering Personalised Freight Management to reinstate him to his previous position or, alternatively, to pay him compensation equivalent to the wages he would have earned during the notice period.

Orders