DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Tyson Haig
v
Statewide Manufacturing
(U2020/4640)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 29 JUNE 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] On 9 April 2020, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) received an application from Tyson Haig for a remedy for unfair dismissal under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), in respect of his employment with ‘Statewide Manufacturing’.

[2] Mr Haig said his dismissal took effect on 20 March 2020, but Statewide Manufacturing Services Pty Ltd (the respondent) advised the Commission that it considered his dismissal to have taken effect on 18 March 2020. Accordingly, there was a dispute regarding whether Mr Haig had lodged his application more than 21 days after his dismissal took effect.

[3] On 15 June 2020, my chambers sent Mr Haig correspondence about the respondent’s view that he required an extension of time in order for his application to be validly lodged. I directed him to respond by 5:00 pm on 18 June 2020. However, no response was received.

[4] On 19 June 2020, my chambers sent further correspondence to Mr Haig, directing him to respond by 4:00 pm on 23 June 2020, and advising that if he did not respond, his application may be dismissed.

[5] To date, Mr Haig has not responded to any of the Commission’s correspondence.

[6] Section 587 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

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.”

[7] The words, “[w]ithout limiting when FWC may dismiss an application” at the commencement of s.587(1) of the Act establish that the jurisdiction of the Commission to dismiss an application is not limited to the circumstances set out in s.587(1)(a), (b) and (c).

[8] In the circumstances, I have decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the Act.

[9] An order to that effect will issue with this decision.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tyson Haig v Statewide Manufacturing, the applicant sought relief for an unfair dismissal from his employment. The proceedings took place in the Fair Work Commission, where the applicant argued that his dismissal was unjust and contrary to the principles of fairness. The nature of the dispute centred around the termination of the applicant's employment by Statewide Manufacturing, with the applicant claiming that he was dismissed without just cause or proper procedure. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was indeed unfair, as well as considering any appropriate remedies that might be available under the Fair Work Act.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the applicant's dismissal constituted an unfair dismissal within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. This required an examination of the reasons for the dismissal, the procedural fairness of the process, and whether the dismissal was genuinely for a valid reason related to the applicant’s performance or conduct. The Commission also had to consider whether any procedural errors during the dismissal process affected the fairness of the outcome. Furthermore, the Commission assessed whether the dismissal was a proportionate response to the applicant’s conduct, considering the employer's overall treatment of the employee and the circumstances leading up to the dismissal.

The Commission found that the dismissal was indeed unfair. The employer had not provided the applicant with adequate information regarding the reasons for the dismissal, nor had they followed proper procedures. Additionally, the Commission determined that the reasons for dismissal did not justify the termination, as the employer had not demonstrated that the dismissal was a proportionate response to the applicant’s conduct. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to reinstate the applicant to his former position and compensate him for the period of lost income, along with other entitlements. This decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for employers to follow the correct process when dismissing an employee.

Tyson Haig v Statewide Manufacturing

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established