TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – remedy – ss.394, 400, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – at first instance Commission required to determine appropriate remedy following respondent conceding that appellant’s termination of employment was harsh, unjust and unreasonable – Commission held at first instance reinstatement was not an appropriate remedy – awarded compensation of $64,655, the maximum amount of compensation permitted to be awarded to the appellant – appellant advanced a number of grounds of appeal, including that it would be in the public interest for the Commission to grant permission to appeal because the Decision undermined the statutory intention to make reinstatement the primary remedy for dismissal, and undermined public confidence in the Commission’s willingness to order reinstatement in appropriate cases – appellant further submitted that the public interest arose in circumstances where the Commission took into account the exercise by him of workplace rights (including taking legal proceedings against his employer) as a matter adverse to the conclusion that reinstatement was appropriate – Full Bench held appellant did not demonstrate an arguable case for appealable error, except in relation to taking into account the proceedings taken by him and others against Asciano, a related entity of the respondent, in the Federal Court – however Full Bench not persuaded that this by itself was sufficient to attract the public interest – Decision at first instance demonstrated the Commission considered there were a range of considerations militating against reinstatement, and it was apparent the Federal Court litigation played only a minor part in the analysis – held the matter turned on its particular facts, and the appeal raised no issue of general importance or legal principle – having regard to the substantial amount of compensation ordered as a remedy Full Bench did not consider the Decision manifested an injustice – held not in the public interest to grant permission to appeal – permission to appeal refused. Appeal by King against decision of Drake SDP of 17 March 2017 [[2017] FWC 1583] Re: Patrick Projects P/L
…
