TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – performance – ss.394, 400, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – appellant’s appeal grounds mainly relied upon findings at first instance which led to conclusion there was valid reason for dismissal, but dismissal denied appellant procedural fairness – appellant also contended remedy of four weeks’ remuneration was ‘unfairly calculated’ – Commission must not grant permission to appeal unless in public interest – appeals on question of fact may only be made if decision involved significant error of fact – statutory test is stringent [Coal & Allied] – public interest test is discretionary and involves broad value judgment [O’Sullivan] – appeal cannot succeed in the absence of appealable error [Wan] – Full Bench found that when deciding whether appellant was unfairly dismissed the Commission applied principles in orthodox manner and there was no arguable case of error – also no arguable case of error relating to Commission’s calculation of remedy, nor any other aspect of decision – Full Bench concluded appeal did not attract public interest after taking into account considerations in GlaxoSmithKline – not satisfied there was a diversity of decisions at first instance so that guidance from appellate body is required, nor that appeal raised issues of importance and/or general application – also not satisfied decision at first instance manifested injustice, or result was counterintuitive, nor that legal principles applied were disharmonious when compared with other decisions dealing with similar matters – permission to appeal refused. Appeal by Bigg against decision of Cambridge C of 22 November 2016 [[2016] FWC 8163] Re: NORTEC Employment & Training Limited
…
