DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Troy Cameron
v
Murrin Murrin Operations Pty Ltd
(U2019/14700)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT

PERTH, 31 MARCH 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – whether application filed within 21 days – extension of time – no exceptional circumstances – extension of time not granted.

[1] Mr Cameron applied for an unfair dismissal remedy on 25 December 2019, having been dismissed from Murrin Murrin Operations Pty Ltd (Murrin Murrin) on 12 February 2019. Murrin Murrin objected to the application on two grounds. The first, the application was filed outside the 21-day period prescribed by s.394(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The second, Mr Cameron had not satisfied the minimum employment period as required by s.382(a). This decision deals with those objections.

BACKGROUND

[2] Mr Cameron commenced employment with Murrin Murrin on 16 November 2018 as a ‘Casual Mobile Plant Operator’ working at the Murrin Murrin mine site. 1 Both a letter of offer of 15 November 20182 and an ‘Employment Contract (Casual)’3 set the terms and conditions of his employment.

[3] According to Murrin Murrin, Mr Cameron worked regular operational shifts as a Mobile Plant Operator with one of Murrin Murrin’s mining teams.

[4] Clause 9 of Mr Cameron’s Employment Contract provided that ‘[E]ither party may terminate this Agreement and your employment on giving one (1) day’s written notice’.

[5] Mr Cameron said that when he was offered employment with Murrin Murrin he was told it was for a permanent position, but the three month probationary period would be served as a casual. 4 Having served the three month period, he would then be offered a permanent contract.5 Murrin Murrin refutes that an offer or suggestion of permanent employment was communicated to Mr Cameron and notes that the letter of offer and Employment Contract were clear as to the terms of the engagement.

[6] On or around 29 January 2019, Mr Cameron asked his Supervisor, Mr Mathieson, if he would receive his permanent contract before leaving site. 6 Some three months had now passed. He was informed that a change in roster from a two weeks on / one week off to a two weeks on / two weeks off, had resulted in the probationary period being changed to six months.7 Mr Cameron said that he explained to Mr Mathieson that he had not signed up for a six month probation and it was wrong of Murrin Murrin to move the goal posts.8

[7] According to Mr Cameron’s evidence, his discontent with the situation was eventually conveyed directly to the Mine Superintendent, Mr Glynn Jones. 9 Mr Cameron’s evidence was that Mr Jones was rude, angry and spoke down to him, and that Mr Jones informed Mr Cameron that it had not been communicated to him that he would be on a three month probationary period and would thereafter be offered permanent employment.10 Whilst Mr Cameron suggested a meeting with the employee…

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] FWC 1566
Decision Date: 31 MARCH 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Troy Cameron sought an unfair dismissal remedy against Murrin Murrin Operations Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Mr Cameron alleged that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to the applicable employment laws. The central issue was whether the application for remedy was lodged within the 21-day statutory period and, if not, whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of that time.

The court examined the statutory requirements for filing an application for unfair dismissal remedy and noted that the application was not filed within the prescribed 21 days. Mr Cameron applied for an extension of time, arguing that there were exceptional circumstances warranting relief from the strict time limits. However, the court found that the reasons provided by Mr Cameron did not constitute exceptional circumstances. As such, the court declined to extend the time for filing the application.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for an unfair dismissal remedy due to the failure to file within the requisite period and the absence of exceptional circumstances to justify an extension of time. No further orders were made by the court in relation to the application.

Orders