Wesley Jones v Capital Veneering Pty Ltd - [2014] FWC 1464

[2014] FWC 1464

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Wesley Jones
v
Capital Veneering Pty Ltd
(U2013/16368)

COMMISSIONER DEEGAN

CANBERRA, 28 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for remedy for unfair dismissal, application lodged outside the statutory time limit for lodgement, no exceptional circumstances, application dismissed.

[1] On 29 November 2013 an application for a remedy in respect of an alleged unfair dismissal was received in the post office box of the Canberra office of the Fair Work Commission (the Commission). The application was made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act (the Act) by Mr Wesley Jones (the applicant) in respect of the termination of his employment by Capital Veneering Pty Ltd (the respondent). The application was incomplete as it was not signed or dated and was not accompanied by the required filing fee.

[2] Section 394 of the Act is as follows

394 Application for unfair dismissal remedy

(1) A person who has been dismissed may apply to the FWC for an order under Division 4 granting a remedy.

Note 1: Division 4 sets out when the FWC may order a remedy for unfair dismissal.

Note 2: For application fees, see section 395.

Note 3: Part 6-1 may prevent an application being made under this Part in relation to a dismissal if an application or complaint has been made in relation to the dismissal other than under this Part.

(2) The application must be made:

(a) within 21 days after the dismissal took effect; or

(b) within such further period as the FWC allows under subsection (3).

(3) The FWC may allow a further period for the application to be made by a person under subsection (1) if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:

(a) the reason for the delay; and

(b) whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect; and

(d) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and

(e) the merits of the application; and

(f) fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position.

[3] According to the information in the application the applicant was dismissed from his employment with effect from 4 November 2013. As the application was not received until 29 November 2013 it did not comply with the requirement set out in s.394(2) of the Act. As a consequence, the matter was listed for a hearing to determine whether there were exceptional circumstances such that further time should be allowed for the making of the application.

[4] At the hearing the applicant appeared in person. According to his evidence he had initially made an application for unfair dismissal which he had posted to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) on 14 November 2013, as he believed that the FWO was the appropriate organisation. He claimed that he received no contact from the FWO until he was telephoned late on 21 November…

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 Wesley Jones v Capital Veneering 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: [2014] FWC 1464
Decision Date: 28 FEBRUARY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wesley Jones brought an application for remedy for unfair dismissal against Capital Veneering Pty Ltd. He alleged that his dismissal was unjust, citing various grounds, including redundancy. However, the application was lodged beyond the statutory time limit, which is 21 days from the date of termination. The Fair Work Commission was required to decide whether to entertain the application despite the time constraint, considering if any exceptional circumstances existed that would warrant an extension.

The Fair Work Commission focused on the statutory time limit for lodgement of unfair dismissal applications, which is a strict procedural requirement. The Commission considered whether there were any exceptional circumstances that would justify waiving the time limit. Jones argued that he had been unaware of the dismissal's unfair nature until he received legal advice, but the Commission found no compelling evidence to support this claim. The Commission held that the statutory time limit must be adhered to unless there are exceptional circumstances, and in this instance, none were present.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Jones's application on the basis that it was lodged outside the statutory time limit and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated. The Commission emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural rules and noted that the statutory period is a jurisdictional limit that cannot be lightly disregarded. As a result, Jones's application for a remedy for unfair dismissal was rejected.

The Fair Work Commission made an order dismissing Wesley Jones's application for remedy for unfair dismissal. The decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with statutory time limits for lodgement and the limited circumstances under which extensions may be granted. The Commission concluded that Jones's application was not eligible for consideration due to the failure to meet the prescribed procedural requirements.

Orders