TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – misconduct – ss.394, 400, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – Commission at first instance dismissed unfair dismissal application – found serious misconduct – found that despite circumstances and possibility of procedural unfairness applicant’s prospects of providing a satisfactory explanation were not likely and would make no difference to outcome of matter – appellant was selfrepresented – permission to appear granted to respondent representative due to complexity of matter – appellant advanced numerous grounds for appeal including specific errors and significant errors of fact – s.400 test stringent but task of assessing public interest discretionary [Coal & Allied] – rarely appropriate to grant permission to appeal unless an arguable case of appealable error is demonstrated, an appeal cannot succeed in the absence of appealable error [Wan] – an error made by a Commission member is not necessarily a sufficient basis to grant permission to appeal [GlaxoSmithKline] – not necessary to conduct a detailed examination of grounds for appeal to determine the grant of permission to appeal [MTGI v Johnston] – Full Bench satisfied that appellant did not demonstrate arguable case of appealable error – could not detect any significant error of fact or error of law – not persuaded that public interest is enlivened by appellant’s dissatisfaction with an outcome where there is no arguable case of appealable error – permission to appeal refused. Appeal by Strauss against decision of Drake SDP of 17 March 2017 [[2017] FWC 1574] Re: Patrick Projects P/L
…
