Tony Randazzo v Barkoo Pty Ltd T/A GS Roasting Summary

[2014] FWC 7583

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tony Randazzo
v
Barkoo Pty Ltd T/A GS Roasting
(U2014/9826)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 24 OCTOBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 5 June 2014, Mr Tony Randazzo made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Mr Randazzo’s employment had been terminated by Barkoo Pty Ltd T/A GS Roasting (Barkoo) on 15 May 2014.

[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 Randazzo was directed to file an outline of submissions, any witness statements and other documentary material he wished to rely on by noon, on 15 September 2014.

[4] Mr Randazzo requested an extension to file his submissions. A further period of time was granted and Mr Randazzo was required to file his material by 3 October 2014.

[5] Mr Randazzo did not comply with this direction and the matter was listed for a non compliance hearing before me on 19 September 2014.

[6] Mr Randazzo did not attend the non compliance hearing. Barkoo made an oral application, pursuant to s.399A of the Act, that the matter be dismissed as Mr Randazzo had failed to comply with the direction of the Fair Work Commission. I waived compliance with the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013 and accepted Barkoo’s oral application.

[7] On 10 October 2014, Mr Randazzo was sent correspondence informing him of Barkoo’s section 399A application. Mr Randazzo was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in respect of Barkoo’s application by close of business, on 20 October 2014. Mr Randazzo was advised that if he failed to comply with this direction, his application would be dismissed.

[8] Mr Randazzo did not file any material with the Commission.

[9] 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.

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

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

[12] After considering all the material, Mr Randazzo’s 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 case before the Fair Work Commission involved Tony Randazzo, the applicant, who sought relief from an unfair dismissal from his employment with Barkoo Pty Ltd trading as GS Roasting. The applicant was dismissed from his role as a chef and alleged that the dismissal was unjust and not in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, an industrial relations tribunal in Australia.

The legal issues central to the case were whether the dismissal of the applicant was indeed unfair and if the employer, GS Roasting, had adhered to the requisite procedural fairness during the termination process. The applicant argued that he was dismissed without cause and without being given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. GS Roasting, on the other hand, contended that the dismissal was justified and that the applicant had been afforded all necessary procedural fairness.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the applicant's dismissal was not supported by a valid reason and that the employer failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Commission held that GS Roasting did not follow proper procedures, and therefore, the dismissal was unfair. Consequently, the Commission ordered that the dismissal be deemed unfair and made a reinstatement order in favour of the applicant, as well as compensation for the period of the dismissal.

Tony Randazzo v Barkoo Pty Ltd T/A GS Roasting

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established