DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604—Appeal of decision

Troy Cameron
v
Murrin Murrin Operations Pty Ltd
(C2020/2472)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON
COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 14 MAY 2020

Appeal against decision ([2020] FWC 1566) of Deputy President Beaumont at Perth on 31 March 2020 in matter number U2019/14700 – unfair dismissal claim lodged out of time – permission to appeal refused

[1] Mr Troy Cameron has lodged an appeal, for which permission is required, against a decision made by Deputy President Beaumont on 31 March 2020 (Decision), 1 in which the Deputy President refused to grant an extension of time for Mr Cameron to lodge his application for an unfair dismissal remedy. Mr Cameron’s application for permission to appeal was heard before us on 8 May 2020.

[2] Section 394(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) provides that an application for an unfair dismissal remedy must be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect, or within such further period as the Commission may allow under s 394(3) if it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account the matters set out in that subsection.

[3] Mr Cameron commenced employment with Murrin Murrin Operations Pty Ltd (company) on 16 November 2018 as a casual mobile plant operator. On 12 February 2019 Mr Cameron received a letter from the company which advised him of the ‘suspension’ of his operational shifts as a casual operator. The letter stated that Mr Cameron would ‘remain active’ on the company’s ‘system’ for a period of 6 months from his last rostered shift, but that if the company was unable to offer him further operational shifts in this period, it would remove him from its system. The Deputy President concluded that Mr Cameron was dismissed at the expiration of this 6-month period, and that his unfair dismissal application, lodged on 25 December 2019, was four months out of time. The Deputy President was not persuaded that there were exceptional circumstances and declined to grant a further period under s 394(3). The Deputy President therefore dismissed Mr Cameron’s unfair dismissal application.

[4] Mr Cameron’s notice of appeal contends that the Deputy President erred in finding that he was dismissed in August 2019. He submits that the Deputy President ought to have concluded that he was dismissed on 5 December 2019, with the consequence that there was no need for him to seek an extension of time.

[5] An appeal under s 604 of the Act is an appeal by way of rehearing however the Commission’s powers on appeal are only exercisable if there is error on the part of the primary decision-maker. 2 An appeal may only be made with the permission of the Commission. The present appeal is one to which s 400 of the Act applies. This section provides:

“(1) Despite subsection 604(2), the FWC must not grant permission to appeal from a decision made by the FWC under this Part unless…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Troy Cameron v Murrin Murrin Operations Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] FWCFB 2484
Decision Date: 14 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Troy Cameron versus Murrin Murrin Operations Pty Ltd, the matter before the Federal Court was an appeal against a decision rendered by Deputy President Beaumont at Perth. The decision pertained to an unfair dismissal claim that was lodged beyond the prescribed statutory time frame. The case originated from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) and was heard and decided on 31 March 2020, with the reference number U2019/14700. The primary issue before the Court was whether the applicant, Mr Cameron, should be granted permission to appeal the FWC's decision, which had dismissed his claim for being lodged outside the allowable timeframe.

The Court was tasked with determining whether Mr Cameron's late filing of his unfair dismissal claim could be justified under the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The legal issues encompassed whether the FWC had correctly applied the law in refusing to exercise its discretion to permit the late filing, and whether there were grounds for the Court to intervene and allow the appeal. The Court also had to consider the principles of procedural fairness and the potential implications of allowing an appeal in circumstances where the statutory timelines had been clearly missed.

The Court's reasoning centred on the strict compliance with the statutory timelines for lodging unfair dismissal claims. It was noted that the FWC has a discretion to permit a late filing only if there are exceptional circumstances that justify the delay. The Court held that the FWC had properly exercised its discretion in this matter, as there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted permitting the late filing. The Court found that Mr Cameron had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant an extension of time, and thus, the FWC's decision was affirmed. Consequently, the Court refused the application for leave to appeal.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the FWC that the unfair dismissal claim was lodged outside the allowable timeframe and, as such, was invalid. The Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines in employment-related claims and the limited circumstances under which a late filing may be permitted.

Orders