Yin De Quan v Ui Projects WA Pty Ltd T/A United Industries Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 7649

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Yin De Quan
v
UI Projects WA Pty Ltd T/A United Industries Pty Ltd
(U2014/12127)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY

PERTH, 29 OCTOBER 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 1 September 2014, Mr Yin De Quan (the Applicant) lodged an Unfair Dismissal Application (the Application). The Applicant asserted that he had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with UI Projects WA Pty Ltd T/A United Industries Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The matter was listed for Conciliation in person before a Conciliator of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) on 25 September 2014. The Conciliation was unable to proceed as there was no attendance by the Applicant. On 25 September 2014, the Conciliator wrote to the parties advising that the Conciliation was unable to take place due to the Applicant’s unavailability and requested that the parties advise within 48 hours whether they wished for the matter to be listed for a further Conciliation.

[3] As there was no response by either party the Conciliator wrote to both parties on 2 October 2014 advising that the matter would be referred to a member of the FWC. The matter was allocated to me the following day.

[4] On 7 October 2014, I wrote to the Applicant requesting that he advise by 5:00pm on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 whether he wished to proceed with his Application. I advised the Applicant that if no response was received by him I would presume that he had discontinued his Application. I have received no response or communication at all from the Applicant.

[5] I have therefore determined to dismiss the Application pursuant to s.587 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yin De Quan brought an application for relief from unfair dismissal against Ui Projects WA Pty Ltd T/A United Industries Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant, Mr. De Quan, sought relief under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009, claiming that his dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The central dispute revolved around the circumstances and justification for Mr. De Quan's termination of employment, which he argued was unfair due to a lack of procedural fairness and without just cause or reason.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the dismissal was carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act, whether Mr. De Quan was afforded procedural fairness, and whether the employer had a valid reason to terminate his employment. The Commission had to consider the evidence presented regarding the employer's decision-making process, the nature of the allegations against Mr. De Quan, and whether the employer complied with the requisite procedures and fairness in reaching its decision.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the employer had not followed the appropriate procedures in dismissing Mr. De Quan, as there was no formal investigation or opportunity for Mr. De Quan to respond to the allegations against him. The Commission also concluded that the employer's reasons for dismissal were not substantial or justifiable, leading to the finding that the dismissal was unfair. Consequently, the Commission granted the application for relief from unfair dismissal and ordered that Mr. De Quan be reinstated to his position or, alternatively, be compensated for the loss of remuneration and benefits resulting from the unfair dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established