DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Thomas Vlassis
v
Super Retail Group Services Pty Ltd
(U2020/7750)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 7 AUGUST 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 5 June 2020, Thomas Vlassis applied for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). He named his former employer as Super Retail Group Services Pty Ltd.

[2] On 26 June 2020, Super Cheap Auto Pty Ltd lodged an Employer’s Response (Form F3) to Mr Vlassis’ application, stating that it, and not Super Retail Group Services Pty Ltd, was Mr Vlassis’ former employer.

[3] On 16 July 2020, my chambers sent correspondence to Mr Vlassis asking whether he still pressed his application against Super Retail Group Services Pty Ltd, or if he wished to request to amend his application to name another entity as the respondent. He was directed to respond by 4:00 pm on 23 July 2020. However, no response was received.

[4] On 24 July 2020, my chambers sent further correspondence to Mr Vlassis, directing him to respond by 4:00 pm on 29 July 2020, and advising that if he did not respond, his application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mr Vlassis has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[6] Section 587 of the Act provides:

“587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[7] The words, “[w]ithout limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[8] In the circumstances, I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

[9] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Thomas Vlassis, the applicant, brought an application for an unfair dismissal remedy against Super Retail Group Services Pty Ltd, the respondent. The case concerned the termination of Vlassis' employment by the respondent, which he contested on the grounds of unfairness. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issues before the Commission involved whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether the respondent had just cause for termination. Vlassis argued that his dismissal was unjust and that the respondent failed to follow proper procedural steps. The Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the reasons for dismissal, the process followed, and the fairness of the outcome. In its decision, the Commission found that the respondent had just cause for dismissal but determined that the termination process was not followed correctly, leading to an unfair dismissal. Consequently, the Commission ordered the respondent to reinstate Vlassis to his previous position and award compensation for the period of unjust dismissal.

Thomas Vlassis v Super Retail Group Services 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