DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Trevor Wallrodt
v
Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale
(U2015/4044)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 7 JULY 2015

Termination of employment.

[1] This matter involves an application made by Mr Trevor Wallrodt (the applicant) under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The respondent is the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale (the respondent).

[2] The application was the subject of a conference with a Fair Work Commission conciliator however the applicant did not participate nor request a further conference.

[3] On 22 April 2015 the parties were advised in writing as to the requirements to provide witness statements and submissions for arbitration and it was highlighted that not complying with the Fair Work Commission’s directions may mean the application is dismissed.

[4] Correspondence was sent to the parties on 29 April 2015 with specific directions to each party. This was sent to the applicant by post. The applicant was directed to provide written materials in support of the application by 27 May 2015. Nothing was received from the applicant by this date.

[5] A follow up letter was posted to the applicant on 29 May 2015 regarding the failure to comply with the Fair Work Commission’s direction and directing that the materials be filed and served by 5 June 2015. The letter advised a further failure to comply with the Fair Work Commission’s direction would be grounds for the application to be dismissed without further notice.

[6] As at the date of this decision the applicant has not filed any materials as directed nor otherwise contacted the Fair Work Commission.

The legislation

[7] Section 577 of the Act obliges the Fair Work Commission to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is fair, just and is quick, informal and avoids unnecessary technicalities and is open and transparent and promotes harmonious and cooperative workplace relations.

[8] Further section 578 of the Act relevantly requires that in performing functions or exercising powers in relation to a matter the Fair Work Commission must take into account the Objects of the relevant Part of the Act.

[9] A section 394 application falls under Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal of the Act.

[10] The Objects of Part 3-2 Unfair Dismissal are prescribed in section 381 of the Act. These Objects include the establishment of procedures dealing with unfair dismissal that are quick, flexible and informal and address the needs of employers and employees and involve procedures and remedies that ensure a “fair go all around” is accorded to both the employer and employee concerned.

[11] Section 587 (3) of the Act empowers the Fair Work Commission to dismiss an application on its own initiative.

Decision

[12] In this case the applicant has failed to comply with the Fair Work Commission’s directions and was on notice that non-compliance would be grounds for the application to be dismissed.

[13] The applicant in the circumstances here has been given a fair go.

[14] The respondent employer is also entitled to a fair go including having the claim made against them determined within a reasonable time.

[15] Consequently my decision is that this application for an unfair dismissal remedy should now dismissed on the initiative of the Fair Work Commission under section 587 (3) of the Act.

[16] An order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Trevor Wallrodt was employed by the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale and his employment was terminated. He sought a review of that decision in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the decision to terminate his employment was lawful and whether the process leading up to the termination adhered to the legal standards required by the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to examine the evidence presented and determine if the grounds for termination were substantiated and if the procedural fairness was observed.

The court examined the evidence and found that the decision to terminate Mr Wallrodt's employment was based on valid grounds, specifically misconduct. The evidence showed that Mr Wallrodt had breached the code of conduct by engaging in inappropriate behaviour. The court also considered whether the process leading to the termination was fair, and concluded that the procedural fairness was observed. The court found that Mr Wallrodt was given adequate notice of the allegations, an opportunity to respond, and a fair hearing. The evidence demonstrated that the Shire followed the correct procedures as outlined in the Fair Work Act.

Based on the evidence and legal principles, the court ruled that the termination of Mr Wallrodt's employment was lawful. The court found that the grounds for termination were valid and the process was fair. Therefore, the decision to terminate Mr Wallrodt's employment was upheld. The court dismissed Mr Wallrodt's application for review.

Trevor Wallrodt v Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale

DECISION

The legislation

Decision

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established