Yoo v EOS Australia Pty Ltd - [2016] FWC 165

[2016] FWC 165

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Pascal (Jungil) Yoo
v
EOS Australia Pty Ltd
(U2015/10118)
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS	SYDNEY, 17 MARCH 2016
Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] This decision concerns an application lodged on 18 August 2015 by Mr Yoo pursuant

to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in relation to the alleged unfair termination of

his employment by EOS Australia Pty Ltd (EOS or the Company). The matter was the subject

of unsuccessful conciliation by a Fair Work Commission Conciliator on 14 September 2015.

The matter was then set down for arbitration before me in Sydney on 3 December 2015.

Directions were issued on 30 September 2015 for the filing of written submissions, witness

statements and any supporting documents. That process was completed on or about

26 October 2015.

[2] At the hearing Mr Yoo represented himself and the Company was represented by Mr P

Cha. Both parties were assisted by a Korean interpreter, Ms Thomas. The Applicant gave

sworn evidence. Mr P Cha, Ms A Oh, Mr K Park and Mr S Cha gave sworn evidence for

EOS.

Background

[3] Mr Yoo commenced employment with EOS in July 2007, initially part-time. Mr Yoo

was then employed pursuant to a company-sponsored class 457 Work Visa and was

subsequently successfully sponsored for Australian permanent residency by the Company. He

was employed as a Purchasing Manager when his employment was terminated on 29 July

2015. According to the Company, Mr Yoo was dismissed due to behaviour issues and

conflicts with other staff members. Mr Yoo denies any wrongdoing and seeks reinstatement

and compensation for lost wages.

Evidence

The Applicant

1

[4]

The Applicant gave sworn evidence and adopted a witness statement

. The witness

statement consisted of a document issued by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission)
[2016] FWC 165

entitled Unfair Dismissal – Preparing for a conference. That document was partly completed

by Mr Yoo and stated in answer to the question ‘Why do you think the dismissal was unfair:

“1. In spite of Shane [Cha]’s incorrect information providing, employer gave to
me verbal warning. As a result, I was notified of the dismissal.
2. I do not think that this makes sense because I do not have serious issues with
colleagues and I have daily conversations and we sometimes have lunch
together.
3. I haven’t received information that how many staffs, they don’t want to work
with me and why?”

[5] The document goes on to say that the Applicant has not been seeking work since the

dismissal as he has been seeking reinstatement to his former position with EOS.

[6] Mr Yoo also gave oral evidence. In that oral evidence, he relevantly said:
 That the Company alleged that his attitude in interpersonal dealings was an
ongoing problem.
 That he was unfairly blamed for supply issues which were not his fault.
 That allegations against him over his alleged bad behaviour in interactions with
other staff were very vague.

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.

Continue reading Yoo v EOS Australia Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Yoo v EOS Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 165
Case: [2016] FWC 165
Decision Date: 17 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pascal (Jungil) Yoo v EOS Australia Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr Yoo, sought relief from unfair dismissal pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The crux of the dispute was whether the termination of Mr Yoo's employment by EOS Australia Pty Ltd was justified, procedurally fair, and not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The case was arbitrated by Commissioner Roberts, who ultimately dismissed Mr Yoo's application.

The legal issues central to the decision involved whether the dismissal was based on a valid reason related to Mr Yoo's conduct, whether Mr Yoo was notified of the reasons for the dismissal and given an opportunity to respond, and whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable considering all relevant circumstances. The court meticulously reviewed the evidence provided by both parties, including witness statements and oral testimonies, to assess the validity of the reasons for dismissal and the fairness of the process.

Commissioner Roberts found that EOS had a valid reason to terminate Mr Yoo's employment due to a long history of poor behaviour and conflicts with colleagues, culminating in an incident on 28 July 2015. The Commissioner accepted the evidence of EOS's witnesses over Mr Yoo's, noting Mr Yoo's demeanour and behaviour during the proceedings indicated an inability to acknowledge his faults. The court also found that Mr Yoo was notified of the reasons for his dismissal and given opportunities to improve his conduct, and that the termination process was fair under the circumstances, given the size of the enterprise and the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists.

In conclusion, the Commissioner found that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Mr Yoo's application for relief was dismissed, and an order reflecting this decision was issued.

Orders