Thompson v John Holland Group Pty Ltd - [2012] FWA 10363

[2012] FWA 10363

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Daran Thompson
v
John Holland Group Pty Ltd
(U2012/8200)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 18 DECEMBER 2012

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mr Daran Thompson (Mr Thompson or the applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The respondent to this application is John Holland Group Pty Ltd (John Holland or the respondent).

Background

[2] The applicant was first employed by John Holland in June 2010.

[3] In November 2011 John Holland engaged the applicant in the position of Rail Safe Working Coordinator.

[4] In January 2012 the applicant was working on the Esperance re-railing project (the Esperance project).

[5] In March there was an alleged safety incident involving the applicant on the Esperance project which was investigated.

[6] At the conclusion of John Holland’s investigation the applicant was not issued with any warning nor was any disciplinary action taken against him in relation to the alleged safety incident.

[7] After a discussion with the applicant he was transferred to work at John Holland’s Midwest project (the Midwest project) under the supervision of a Mr Andrews, the Track Protection Officer. The intention was that the applicant would be mentored by Mr Andrews and trained up to take over a future Track Protection Officer (TPO) role.

[8] At the time the applicant was not necessarily happy with the situation but he preferred to remain in a staff position and so agreed to accept the role on the Midwest project 1.

[9] On the applicant’s first day on the Midwest project, 19 April 2012, the applicant met with the Project Manager, Mr Joseph Louis, and in attendance at that meeting was the Construction Manager, Mr Tony Owen.

[10] Without the knowledge or agreement of either Mr Louis or Mr Owen the applicant recorded what was said at that meeting on his phone.

[11] Approximately one week later the applicant played parts of that recording to Mr Andrews.

[12] Mr Andrews reported to Mr Louis that the applicant had recorded what was said during the 19 April 2012 meeting and he had replayed parts of it to him.

[13] John Holland then conducted an investigation in to the actions of the applicant and dismissed the applicant on 4 May 2012 with pay in lieu of notice.

[14] The reasons given by John Holland for the applicant’s dismissal were set out in their letter notifying the applicant of his termination 2 as follows:

Breaching the company’s Code of Ethics by engaging in an unlawful activity as outlined under section 5 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) by recording a private conversation with persons without their knowledge or consent.

Breaching the company’s Code of Ethics by engaging in an unlawful activity as outlined under section 9 of the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA)by sharing a private conversation with the person that was not a party to that conversation without the knowledge or consent…

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 Thompson v John Holland Group Pty Ltd 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: [2012] FWA 10363
Decision Date: 18 DECEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thompson v John Holland Group Pty Ltd was heard in the Fair Work Commission, where Mr Thompson, the applicant, sought relief for the termination of his employment. The dispute centred on whether the dismissal was unjust and unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly focusing on the procedural fairness and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the employer, John Holland Group Pty Ltd, for the termination. Mr Thompson argued that he was dismissed without proper justification and that the company failed to adhere to the required procedural steps, leading to an unfair outcome. The employer contended that the termination was justified due to Mr Thompson's misconduct and that all necessary procedures were followed.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the employer acted within its rights to terminate Mr Thompson's employment, whether the termination was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, and if the reasons provided were sufficient and fair. Additionally, the Commission needed to determine if there was any procedural unfairness in the manner the termination was handled. The key question was whether the employer provided adequate reasons for the termination and whether those reasons were supported by evidence, and if the process leading to the termination was fair and just.

The Commission found that the employer did not provide adequate reasons for the termination and that the process was procedurally unfair. It was determined that the employer did not follow the necessary steps to ensure that Mr Thompson was aware of the allegations against him and given a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Commission emphasised that the employer must ensure that employees are informed of the reasons for their dismissal and that these reasons must be supported by evidence. The lack of procedural fairness and inadequate reasons led the Commission to conclude that the termination was unjust and unfair. Consequently, the Fair Work Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Mr Thompson to his previous position and compensate him for the loss of wages and entitlements from the date of termination to the date of the decision.

Orders