Steadman v The South Australian Potato Company Pty Ltd t/as SA Potato Company [2011] FWA 1300

Fair Work Australia|2011-03-03

(#P31_1646) Due to member availability that was subsequently changed to the following day.

(#P59_5622) I took the view that the matter would be more effectively dealt with by Fair Work Australia if the respondent was represented. It was also clear that the respondent was not in a position to effectively represent itself given its lack of any specialist resources and the fact that the actual decision maker was no longer employed within the business and had to be called to give evidence.

(#P70_8342) File note.

(#P146_13372) An application for Judicial review of this decision has been taken and is yet to be determined.

(#P147_13680) At par [13].

(#P150_14110) There was on face value no apparent opportunity given by the respondent for the applicant to respond to the allegations prior to the dismissal (s.387(c)).

(#P157_15447) [2011] FWA 31, 14 January 2011.

(#P184_19397) This was done as the applicant was given dispensation from the prescribed application filing fee.

(#P185_19673) Conciliator Cashen wrote to both parties on 16 November 2010 and helpfully set out the process to follow and confirmed that it was important to advise FWA of any changes in address.

(#P198_21309) PR507197

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (10 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)