Tomasz Gielas v Sydney Tools Summary

[2013] FWC 9125

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tomasz Gielas
v
Sydney Tools
(U2013/2437)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 20 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for relief from unfair dismissal dismissed.

[1] On 22 July 2013, Mr Tomasz Gielas made an application for remedy from unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Gielas’ employment had been terminated by Sydney Tools on 1 July 2013.

[2] The matter was the subject of conciliation however, the matter was not resolved. Consequently, directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Mr Gielas was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 16 October 2013.

[4] Mr Gielas did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before Commissioner Wilson on 1 November 2013.

[5] Mr Gielas did not attend the non compliance hearing. Sydney Tools made an oral application, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Mr Gielas had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission (the Commission). Commissioner Wilson waived compliance with the Fair Work Rules 2009 and accepted Sydney Tools’ oral application.

[6] On 1 November 2013, Mr Gielas was sent correspondence informing him of the Respondent’s s.399A application. Mr Gielas was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Sydney Tools’ application by close of business, on 8 November 2013. Mr Gielas was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[7] Mr Gielas did not file any material with the Commission.

[8] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....

(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[9] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[10] As Mr Gielas did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[11] After considering all the material, Mr Gielas’ application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The applicant, Tomasz Gielas, sought relief from his dismissal from Sydney Tools, which was considered unfair under the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, a tribunal responsible for resolving workplace disputes in Australia. The crux of the dispute was whether Sydney Tools had a valid reason to terminate Mr. Gielas's employment, or if the dismissal was unjust and warranted compensation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the employer, Sydney Tools, had just cause to terminate Mr. Gielas's employment. This involved examining the employer's grounds for dismissal, which they claimed were due to Mr. Gielas's unsatisfactory performance and insubordination. The court was required to determine if these reasons were genuine and sufficient to justify the dismissal, considering the protections afforded to employees under the Fair Work Act.

In examining the evidence presented, the Fair Work Commission concluded that Sydney Tools had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the dismissal. The employer provided documentation and testimonies supporting their claims of poor performance and insubordination by Mr. Gielas. The Commission found that these reasons were legitimate and not pretextual, and that the employer had followed the correct procedures in terminating Mr. Gielas's employment. Consequently, the Commission dismissed Mr. Gielas's application for relief from unfair dismissal.

Tomasz Gielas v Sydney Tools

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established