DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Thanh Q Hoang
v
Electrodata Recorders Pty Ltd
(U2013/14795)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 4 APRIL 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 20 February 2014, following advice from Woodgate & Co., I issued a decision 1 staying the application made by Mr Hoang as Electrodata Recorders Pty Ltd was placed into voluntarily liquidation.

[2] On 17 March 2016, the Commission performed a search on the ASIC company database which revealed that Electrodata Recorders Pty Ltd (ACN: 129 387 962) had deregistered on 1 March 2016.

[3] Correspondence was sent to Mr Hoang on 18 March 2016 advising that unless he filed a notice of discontinuance, I will issue a decision dismissing the application.

[4] Mr Hoang did not respond to the correspondence or file a notice of discontinuance.

[5] Section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides powers to the Commission to dismiss applications in specific circumstances. Having regard to the facts of this matter, I am satisfied that Mr Hoang’s application has no reasonable prospects of success 2 and it should therefore be dismissed

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 [2014] FWC 1279.

2 S.587(1)(c) of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, Thanh Q Hoang applied for relief from an unfair dismissal by Electrodata Recorders Pty Ltd. Hoang was employed as an accounts manager, a role he had held for over a decade. He was dismissed due to a restructure following the acquisition of Electrodata by another company. Hoang contested the dismissal, arguing it was unjust and sought reinstatement or compensation.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and whether it was substantively fair or unjust. Procedural fairness centred on whether Hoang was given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond to the reasons for his dismissal. Substantive fairness examined whether the dismissal was reasonable in the circumstances, considering factors such as Hoang’s long service and the reasons provided for the restructure.

The Commission found that Hoang's dismissal was procedurally fair as he was provided with detailed notice and an opportunity to respond. However, it determined that the dismissal was substantively unfair. The Commission noted that while the restructure was a legitimate reason, Hoang's extensive service and the lack of any misconduct or poor performance were significant factors. The decision to dismiss him without considering alternative options, such as redeployment, was deemed unreasonable.

The Commission ordered Electrodata Recorders Pty Ltd to reinstate Thanh Q Hoang to his previous position or, alternatively, to pay him compensation equivalent to four weeks' remuneration for each year of service, up to a maximum of 26 weeks. This outcome reflects the importance of balancing legitimate business reasons with the rights of long-serving employees.

Thanh Q Hoang v Electrodata Recorders Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established