The applicant commenced proceedings in the Commission, alleging that he was harshly, oppressively, and unfairly dismissed from his employment.  The respondent disputed the claim, asserting that the applicant resigned voluntarily and raised a jurisdictional objection to the application, including that it was filed beyond the 28-day time limit allowed for such claims under the Industrial Relations Act 1979. 

The applicant commenced employment with the respondent as a part-time logistics coordinator under a written contract specifying 30 hours per week with a clause allowing averaging of hours.  His role involved furniture removal and installation for property styling.  Disputes arose regarding the application of the averaging clause and overtime payments, with the applicant claiming he worked more than contracted hours without additional pay, which the respondent denied.

The applicant did not dispute that he resigned, but contended that the resignation was forced due to the employer’s conduct, which allegedly breached the Fair Work Act 2009, the relevant award, and his employment contract.  The respondent maintained that the resignation was voluntary and supported this with text messages exchanged shortly after the resignation, confirming the applicant’s notice period and intention to work out the notice.

After reviewing evidence including that of the applicant’s prior Fair Work Commission hearing, text messages, and oral submissions, Commissioner Kucera found no sufficient evidence that the applicant was forced to resign or that the employer’s conduct was the principal cause of termination.  The Commissioner found the applicant’s resignation was voluntary, albeit given in haste or as a response to workplace grievances.  The applicant had other avenues to address disputes and was not in a significantly unequal power position relative to the respondent.

As the application was filed out of time, and given the lack of merit in the claim, no extension of time was granted.  Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The decision can be read here.

The applicant union commenced proceedings to seek approval to alter its rules to align with its federal counterpart, and to allow those elected to office in its federal counterpart to also hold the same office in the applicant union.  In support of the application were two statutory declarations made by the Secretary of the applicant union, which outlined the steps taken by the applicant to give effect to the alterations to the applicant’s rules including the rules relating to its Constitution, Elections and Alteration of Rules.

The Commission in Court Session found that the applicant complied with the relevant internal procedures for executive approval, member notification and the opportunity for objections to the alterations.  The Commission in Court Session held that the application was duly authorised in accordance with the applicant’s Rules, members were informed, and no objections were made.  Accordingly, the Commission in Court Session authorised the proposed alterations to the Rules of the applicant as sought.

The decision can be read here.