TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – ss.394, 400, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – at first instance the Commission found the appellant’s dismissal was unreasonable and unjust and ordered compensation of $1,100 – grounds for appeal included that there was no valid reason for dismissal; the respondent failed to provide appellant with fair treatment or to comprehensively and impartially investigate the allegations; and that the respondent had failed to prove that appellant committed serious misconduct – grounds of appeal did not challenge the Commission’s analysis and conclusions concerning the remedy – appellant submitted that the decision at first instance contained errors concerning the definition of serious misconduct and that it was in the public interest to clarify the definition – Full Bench considered that the appeal was fundamentally misconceived, because the issues it raised pertained to matters in relation to which the Commission made findings in his favour – held appeal sought to re-agitate issues upon which the appellant effectively succeeded before the Commission – found appellant had not demonstrated any arguable case of error in the decision and had not identified any issue requiring resolution at the Full Bench level – Full Bench had grave reservations about the manner in which the Commission dealt with the issue of remedy, particularly the assessment of the amount of compensation to be awarded – no appeal ground or submission advanced by appellant which challenged the assessment of compensation – not in the public interest to grant permission to appeal – permission to appeal refused. Appeal by Jimenez against decision of Cambridge C of 5 August 2016 [[2016] FWC 5141] Re: Accent Group t/a Platypus Shoes (Australia) P/L
…
