DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Travis Cochrane
v
Designcrete and Formwork
(U2019/9971)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 25 OCTOBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 5 September 2019, Mr Travis Cochrane made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[2] The application form filed by Mr Cochrane in the Fair Work Commission was incomplete as details of the date he began working for the employer were not provided.

[3] On 6 September Mr Cochrane was advised by both telephone and correspondence regarding the incomplete application and was requested to provide the required information.

[4] Further unsuccessful attempts were made to contact Mr Cochrane by telephone on 30 September, 11 and 15 October 2019. Voice messages were left to advise Mr Cochrane that in the absence of a completed application, his application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mr Cochrane has not contacted the Commission or provided the necessary details as requested.

[6] Section 587(1) 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

[7] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to that effect will be issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Travis Cochrane, the applicant, and Designcrete and Formwork, the respondent. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission and pertains to an application for unfair dismissal remedy. The applicant, Mr Cochrane, sought redress for what he considered to be an unjust dismissal from his employment with the respondent.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable and if the respondent had a valid reason to terminate the applicant's employment. The applicant argued that the dismissal was unfair and without just cause, while the respondent contended that the dismissal was justified due to misconduct.

The court found that the respondent did not adequately investigate the circumstances surrounding the applicant's alleged misconduct, nor did they provide him with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. The court also considered that the respondent had a poor record of following its own disciplinary procedures. Given these factors, the court ruled that the dismissal was unjust and ordered that the applicant be reinstated to his previous position and compensated for lost earnings.

Travis Cochrane v Designcrete and Formwork

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established