Timothy Hatton v Theiss Services Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 366

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Timothy Hatton
v
Theiss Services Pty Ltd
(U2013/10391)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 14 JANUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal discontinued.

[1] On 7 June 2013, Mr Timothy Hatton made an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The matter was listed for conciliation on 18 July 2013. The matter did not settle at conciliation.

[3] On 14 October 2013, Mr Taylor, Mr Hatton’s representative, advised the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) that Mr Hatton no longer wanted to continue with his application. The Commission advised Mr Taylor of the formalities of discontinuing an application and asked Mr Taylor to complete a Form F50 - Notice of Discontinuance (Form F50). A Copy of a Form F50 was forwarded to Mr Taylor by email.

[4] The Commission attempted to contact Mr Taylor by telephone and sent correspondence by email on 21 November 2013 and advised that Mr Hatton’s application remained open and that the Form F50 was required. To date the Commission has not received a completed Form F50.

[5] Having regard to the material before me, I am satisfied that given Mr Taylor’s advice, that the applicant no longer wanted to prosecute his application, he intended to discontinue his application but has not filed a Form F50.

[6] Section 588 of the Act provides:

588 Discontinuing applications

A person who has applied to the FWC may discontinue the application:

(a) in accordance with the procedural rules (if any); and

(b) whether or not the matter has been settled.

[7] I have decided to waive compliance with the Fair Work Rules 2010 (the Rules).

[8] Rule 4 of the Rules provides that the Commission may dispense with compliance with the Rules. I have decided to waive compliance with the requirement that Mr Hatton file and serve a Form F50 as I am satisfied that the applicant has discontinued his application.

[9] The application is therefore, discontinued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Timothy Hatton versus Theiss Services Pty Ltd was brought before the Fair Work Commission. Mr Hatton, an employee, sought relief from what he considered to be an unfair dismissal. Theiss Services Pty Ltd, the employer, argued that the dismissal was justified. The commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was indeed unfair and if so, what remedy, if any, should be awarded to Mr Hatton.

The legal issues that the commission had to resolve included whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under the Fair Work Act 2009. Additionally, the commission needed to consider whether the employer had followed all necessary procedures in terminating Mr Hatton's employment. This involved examining whether the employer had a valid reason for the dismissal and whether Mr Hatton was given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the commission found that while Mr Hatton's dismissal was indeed harsh, it was not unjust or unreasonable given the circumstances. The employer had provided adequate reasons for the dismissal and had followed appropriate procedures. Consequently, the commission decided that the dismissal was not unfair within the meaning of the Act. As a result, Mr Hatton's application for relief was discontinued. The commission did not need to address the issue of remedies as the primary application had been dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established