Thomas Langdon v Automotive Brands Group Pty Ltd

[2020] FWC 3103

[2020] FWC 3103

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Thomas Langdon
v
Automotive Brands Group Pty Ltd
(U2020/6261)

COMMISSIONER PLATT ADELAIDE, 12 JUNE 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – refusal of application to extend time – application dismissed.

Introduction

[1] The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) provides that an applicant for an unfair dismissal remedy made pursuant to s.394 of the Act must make an application within 21 days after the dismissal took effect. 1 However, the Fair Work Commission (Commission) may allow a further period for the application to be made in exceptional circumstances.2

[2] This decision concerns whether I should exercise my discretion to allow Mr Thomas Langdon a further period for his unfair dismissal application (Application) to be made against Automotive Brands Group Pty Ltd T/A Autobarn (Autobarn).

Background

[3] Mr Langdon has lodged an application pursuant to s.394 of the Act in relation to the termination of his employment with Autobarn which occurred on 6 February 2020.

[4] The application was lodged on 6 May 2020.

[5] The application identified that it was made beyond 21 days from the date of dismissal and provided the following explanation:

“The reasons for the delay of my unfair dismissal claim was due to the fact I was unaware that it had to be done within 21 calender [sic] days of my dismissal. My manager and the Regional Developments Manager (RDM) were very close friends and I was under the impression no matter what I did I was going to be unable to get my Full Time Position back. I was favoured unfairly even while still employed by the company including multiple months of both me and one of my co workers being the only two Full Time Staff Members in the company Australia wide who had to work both days every weekend for multiple months up to the date of my dismissal, about six months in total of this roster. I have also tried to to resolve this unfair dismissal with Adam Waston [sic] (RDM) personally via email and to arrange a phone call to no response by him.”

[6] On 18 May 2020, Autobarn lodged a form F3 Employer Response which indicated that the dismissal occurred on 6 February 2020 and raised a jurisdictional objection on the basis that the application was lodged out of time.

[7] On 9 June 2020, my Associate corresponded with Mr Langdon and Autobarn and advised that the extension of time issue would be considered at a telephone conference on 12 June 2020. Information about the extension of time issue and the factors that I am required to take into account in considering this matter, were provided to the parties.

[8] Mr Langdon and Autobarn did not file any further material.

Hearing

[9] A hearing was conducted by way of telephone conference on 12 June 2020. A sound file record of the telephone conference was kept. Mr Langdon represented himself and Ms Westlake represented Autobarn.

[10] Mr Langdon’s position is as follows:

•  The lateness of the application is explained by his ignorance of the time limit and his belief that his friendship with the Regional Development Manager would resolve the situation.

•  Mr Langdon advised that on 29 April 2020 he unsuccessfully tried to contact Mr Adam Watson (Regional Development Manager) to get his job back.

•  On 30 April 2020 he became aware that a person named Corey had left Autobarn and he thought this change might assist his return to employment with Autobarn.

•  Mr Langdon was accused of retaining change that was not taken by a customer during an ‘over the counter’ retail transaction. This allegation was not disputed by Mr Langdon who accepted this conduct was not appropriate.

[11] Other than contesting the extension of time application, Autobarn did not make any submissions.

Applicable Law

[12] Section 394(3) of the Act states that the Commission may allow a further period for an applicant to make an unfair dismissal application if the Commission is satisfied that there are “exceptional circumstances”, taking into account the following six criteria:

“(a) the reason for the delay; and

(b) whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect; and

(c) any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal; and

(d) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and

(e) the merits of the application; and

(f) fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position.”

[13] The test of “exceptional circumstances” establishes a “high hurdle” for an applicant. 3

[14] I have considered the provisions of s.394(3) of the Act in the context of the Full Bench decision in Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd⁴ which stated:

“[10] It is convenient to deal first with the meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances” in s.366(2). In Cheval Properties Pty Ltd v Smithers a Full Bench of FWA considered the meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances” in s.394(3) and held:

“[5] The word “exceptional” is relevantly defined in The Macquarie Dictionary as “forming an exception or unusual instance; unusual; extraordinary.” We can apprehend no reason for giving the word a meaning other than its ordinary meaning for the purposes of s.394(3) of the FW Act.”

[11] Given that s.366(2) is in relevantly identical terms to s.394(3), this statement of principle is equally applicable to s.366(2).

[12] The ordinary meaning of the expression “exceptional circumstances” was considered by Rares J in Ho v Professional Services Review Committee No 295, a case involving in s.106KA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth). His Honour observed:

“23. I am of opinion that the expression ‘exceptional circumstances’ requires consideration of all the circumstances. In Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372 at 379 Brennan and Dawson JJ considered a statutory provision which entitled either a parole board or a court to specify a shorter non-parole period than that required under another section only if it determined that the circumstances justified that course. They said of the appellant’s circumstances:

‘Although no one of these factors was exceptional, in combination they may reasonably be regarded as amounting to exceptional circumstances.’

24. Brennan and Dawson JJ held that the failure in that case to evaluate the relevant circumstances in combination was a failure to consider matters which were relevant to the exercise of the discretion under the section (167 CLR at 379). Deane J, (with whom Gaudron and McHugh JJ expressed their concurrence on this point, albeit that they were dissenting) explained that the power under consideration allowed departure from the norm only in the exceptional or special case where the circumstances justified it (167 CLR at 383, 397).

25. And, in Baker v The Queen (2004) 223 CLR 513 at 573 [173] Callinan J referred with approval to what Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ had said in R v Kelly (Edward) [2000] QB 198 at 208, namely:

‘We must construe “exceptional” as an ordinary, familiar English adjective, and not as a term of art. It describes a circumstance which is such as to form an exception, which is out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon. To be exceptional a circumstance need not be unique, or unprecedented, or very rare; but it cannot be one that is regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered.’

26. Exceptional circumstances within the meaning of s 106KA(2) can include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together are seen as exceptional. Thus, the sun and moon appear in the sky everyday and there is nothing exceptional about seeing them both simultaneously during day time. But an eclipse, whether lunar or solar, is exceptional, even though it can be predicted, because it is outside the usual course of events.

27. It is not correct to construe ‘exceptional circumstances’ as being only some unexpected occurrence, although frequently it will be. Nor is it correct to construe the plural ‘circumstances’ as if it were only a singular occurrence, even though it can be a one off situation. The ordinary and natural meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in s 106KA(2) includes a combination of factors which, when viewed together, may reasonably be seen as producing a situation which is out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon. And, the section is directed to the circumstances of the actual practitioner, not a hypothetical being, when he or she initiates or renders the services.”

[13] In summary, the expression “exceptional circumstances” has its ordinary meaning and requires consideration of all the circumstances. To be exceptional, circumstances must be out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon but need not be unique, or unprecedented, or very rare. Circumstances will not be exceptional if they are regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered. Exceptional circumstances can include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together are seen as exceptional. It is not correct to construe “exceptional circumstances” as being only some unexpected occurrence, although frequently it will be. Nor is it correct to construe the plural “circumstances” as if it were only a singular occurrence, even though it can be a one off situation. The ordinary and natural meaning of “exceptional circumstances” includes a combination of factors which, when viewed together, may reasonably be seen as producing a situation which is out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon.”

Consideration

[15] This unfair dismissal application by Mr Langdon was made 69 days outside of the 21 day time limit and therefore, can only be pursued if this time limit is extended.

[16] Section 394 of the Act requires the Commission to take into account the matters set out in s.394(2)(a)-(f). It is convenient to discuss these under the various matters raised by the provision, however, insofar as they are relevant, each matter has been treated as a matter of significance in the decision making process.

Paragraph 394(3)(a) - reason for the delay

[17] The delay required to be considered is the period beyond the prescribed 21 day period for making an application. It does not include the period from the date of the dismissal to the end of the 21 day period. However, the circumstances from the time of the dismissal must be considered when assessing whether there is a credible reason for the delay, or any part of the delay, beyond the 21 day period. 5 In Diotti v Lenswood Cold Stores Co-op Society t/a Lenswood Organic,6 the Full Bench explained the correct approach by reference to the following example:

“[31] For example if an applicant is in hospital for the first 20 days of the 21 day period this would be a relevant consideration if the application was filed 2 days out of time as occurred in this matter.”

[18] An acceptable explanation for the entirety of the delay is not required to make a finding of exceptional circumstances. However, in considering and taking into account the reason for the delay in accordance with s.394(3)(a) of the Act, it is relevant to have regard to whether the applicant has provided an acceptable explanation for the entirety or any part of the delay. The correct approach to be taken was explained by the Full Bench in Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd t/as Richmond Oysters: 7

“[38] As we have mentioned, the assessment of whether exceptional circumstances exist requires a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. No one factor (such as the reason for the delay) need be found to be exceptional in order to enliven the discretion to extend time. This is so because even though no one factor may be exceptional, in combination with other factors the circumstances may be such as to be regarded as exceptional.

[39] So much is clear from the structure of s.366(2), each of the matters needs to be taken into account in assessing whether there are exceptional circumstances. The individual matters might not, viewed in isolation, be particularly significant, so it is necessary to consider the matters collectively and to ask whether collectively the matters disclose exceptional circumstances. The absence of any explanation for any part of the delay, will usually weigh against an applicant in such an assessment. Similarly a credible explanation for the entirety of the delay, will usually weigh in the applicant’s favour, though, as we mention later, it is a question of degree and insight. However the ultimate conclusion as to the existence of exceptional circumstances will turn on a consideration of all of the relevant matters and the assignment of appropriate weight to each.

…

[44] As mentioned earlier, the ‘reasons for the delay’ is a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether there are exceptional circumstances. There is no statutory basis for the adoption of a decision rule whereby if the applicant does not provide a credible explanation for the entire period of the delay then the matter in s.366(2)(a) tells against the finding of exceptional circumstances. Common sense would suggest otherwise, it is plainly a question of degree and weight.

[45] What if the period of the delay was 30 days and the applicant had a credible explanation for 29 of those days? It seems to us that such circumstances may weigh in favour of a finding of exceptional circumstances. Of course, as mentioned earlier if there was a credible explanation for the entirety of the delay that would weigh more heavily in favour of such a finding. Conversely, if the applicant failed to provide a credible explanation for any part of the delay that would tend to weigh against a finding of exceptional circumstances.”

[19] Mr Langdon attributes the delay to his ignorance of the time limit. As to acceptable explanations for a delay or part thereof, ignorance of the 21 day timeframe is not, of itself, an exceptional circumstance. 8

[20] Mr Langdon also contends that he expected the dismissal would be resolved due to his relationship with Mr Watson, the Regional Development Manager. It is notable that Mr Langdon did not attempt to contact Mr Watson until 29 April 2020.

[21] Mr Langdon has not provided a creditable explanation of the delay and this factor weighs against the granting of an extension of time.

Paragraph 394(3)(b) - whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect

[22] Mr Langdon was aware of the dismissal on the date it occurred.

[23] This factor weighs against a finding that there are exceptional circumstances.

Paragraph 394(3)(c) - any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal

[24] Action taken by the employee to contest the dismissal, other than lodging an unfair dismissal application, may favour granting an extension of time. 9

[25] Mr Langdon advised that he tried to resolve the dismissal with the Regional Development Manager as detailed above – no further detail was provided.

[26] There was no other action taken to contest the dismissal.

[27] This factor is a neutral consideration.

Paragraph 394(3)(d) - prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay)

[28] Prejudice to the employer will weigh against granting an extension of time. 10 However, the “mere absence of prejudice to the employer is an insufficient basis to grant an extension of time”.11

[29] A long delay gives rise “to a general presumption of prejudice”. 12

[30] There is no submission that the granting of an extension of time represents prejudice to the Respondent.

Paragraph 394(3)(e) - merits of the application

[31] In terms of the merits of the application, there is no dispute that Mr Langdon personally retained change which was left behind by a customer. This admission (provisionally) appears to be a significant breach of Mr Langdon’s employment obligations. As a result, I have regarded the merits as a factor which weighs against the granting of an extension of time.

Paragraph 394(3)(f) - fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position

[32] The Full Bench in Perry v Rio Tinto Shipping Pty Ltd¹³ considered this criterion and said:

“[41] Cases of this kind will generally turn on their own facts. However, this consideration is concerned with the importance of the application of consistent principles in cases of this kind, thus ensuring fairness as between the Appellant and other persons in a similar position. This consideration may relate to matters currently before the Commission or matters previously decided by the Commission.”

[33] I am not satisfied that the issue of fairness as between the Applicant and other persons in a similar position is a relevant consideration in this matter. Because it is not a relevant factor it is a neutral consideration in determining whether to grant an extension of time.

Conclusion

[34] Having taken into account each of the factors referred to in s.394(3)(a) to (f) of the Act, I am not persuaded that there are exceptional circumstances warranting the granting of an extension of time and, accordingly, I decline to exercise my discretion to so order. In reaching this conclusion, I am particularly (but not solely) influenced by the fact that, in my evaluative assessment, the Applicant did not have an acceptable explanation for the delay.

[35] Accordingly, the application for an extension of time is refused. The jurisdictional objection is upheld and the substantive Application for an unfair dismissal remedy is dismissed.

[36] An Order¹⁴ reflecting this decision will be issued.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances (by telephone):

Mr T Langdon on his own behalf.

Ms M Westlake on behalf of the Respondent.

Hearing (Conference) details:

2020.
Adelaide:
June 12

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR720176>

 1   Section 394(2)(a) of the Act. Note that the 21 days for lodgment does not include the date that the dismissal took effect by reason of the operation of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s.36(1) (item 6—where a period of time ‘is expressed to begin after a specified day’ the period ‘does not include that day’)

 2 Section 394(3) of the Act

 3   Lombardo v Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations[2014] FWCFB 2288 at [21]

4 [2011] FWAFB 975

 5   Shaw v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited T/A ANZ Bank [2015] FWCFB 287 at [12]; Ozsoy v Monstamac Industries Pty Ltd [2014] FWCFB 2149 at [31]; Diotti v Lenswood Cold Stores Co-op Society t/a Lenswood Organic [2016] FWCFB 349 at [29]-[31]

 6   [2016] FWCFB 349

 7   [2018] FWCFB 3288 at [35]-[45]

 8   Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd (2011) 203 IR 1 at [14]

 9   Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298 at 299-300

 10   Ibid

 11   Ibid

 12   Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 at 556

13 [2016] FWCFB 6963

14 PR720177