Extension of time in unfair dismissal claim!
This is an issue that can come over and over again in the workplace matters.
Although we have numerous cases in the past or present, this issue of extension time when filing unfair dismissal claim or lawful termination is reasonably high in the scale of numbers.
In the most recent decision by Full Bench (FB) of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in Craig Fitzpatrick v TS & DE Cowcher Farms Pty Ltd t/a Derek Murray & Co. (C2015/4122) Sydney, 10 August 2015 reiterates the principle enunciated in GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd. v Makin (2010) FWFB5343 atp23-27, 197IR266 in which it identified some of the considerations that may affect or attract the public interest.
“… the public interest might be attracted where a matter raises issues of importance and general application, or where there is a diversity of decision at first instance so that guidance from an appellate court is required, or where the decision at first instance manifest an injustice, or the result is counter intuitive, or that the legal principles applied appear disharmonious when compared with other recent decision dealing with similar matters.” Wan v AIRC (2001) 116 FCR, 481 at 30.
Factual background
On 23 June 2014, this applicant (Mr. Fitzpatrick) commenced to work as Truck Driver with respondent. On 27 January 2015 the applicant was involved in an accident and because of this he was on this spot terminated. The Operation Manager, Mr. David Hand said to him on the day of accident, “ you are through here”. The applicant replied, “I know”. Applicant’s argument is that, “he did not understand that Mr. Hand was terminating his employment.”
It is noted that the applicant continued to attend to work on 2 February 2015. However, the decision record through Deputy President Gooley, indicated at paragraph 20, that she accepted that he was terminated on 27th January 2015 and in subsequent paragraph said she did not accept that he did not understand it and did not contact the employer under2 February 2015. Although in the FB the applicant said there was communication with his inability to work due to his medical conditions.
The application for unfair dismissal or general protection dispute has to be filed 21 days from termination of services, however if there is any delay, the FWC can extend it under section 394 (3) of the Fair Work Act (2009) {‘the Act’). He lodged his application 42 days late or beyond the 21 days allowed under the law.
Mr. Fitzpatrick says, there was delay, he wanted to see if he was going to be paid his entitlements for making the application, he thought the timeline is 28 days not 21 days, he experienced difficulty with the card payment, which the online services failed to accept credit cards.
One of the factors to consider whether or not the employer was prejudice with the delay under section 394 (3) (d) and found that one of the people involved in the accident was no longer employed by the respondent and consequently there will be prejudice if an extension of time is given.
The FB acting on appeal under section 400 of the Act, needs to consider the public interest issue and whether or not there is significant error of fact in the decision.
The applicant made an appeal on the ground of significant error of fact, his allegation that he was not terminated on 27th January 2015 and that the employer should have given him written notice of termination and thinks that it is totally unconscionable to say ‘you are through’ after an accident.
Further alleged that it was not true that he did not contact the employer between 27 January 2015 and 2 February 2015 he pointed his incapacity to attend his work. This is found in his witness statement.
At paragraph 29, the FB said, “an appeal is not an opportunity to conduct, before the Full Bench, the case that the appellant wishes they had conducted before the member at first instance.” This is very true. There are other grounds of appeal, but it did not convince the FB to reconsider its position.
Furthermore, the FB said it is not satisfied that the appeal raises an issue of importance and or general application, is in class where is diversity of decisions at first instance so that guidance from an appellate bench is required and that the decision at first instance did not manifest an injustice and was not consistent with other decisions. Hence, the permission to appeal is not granted.
What’s Up by Charlie Bulos, Solicitor in Victoria
About Author
Login to post comments