Weber v Thomas Foods International (Stawell) Pty Ltd (Interim Reinstatement) [2024] FCA 1506

Federal Court of Australia

Weber v Thomas Foods International (Stawell) Pty Ltd (Interim Reinstatement) [2024] FCA 1506 File number: VID 1206 of 2024

Judgment of: WHEELAHAN J

Date of judgment: 20 December 2024

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW — jurisdiction of the Federal Court – where the applicant was dismissed from his employment as a truck driver by the first respondent (Thomas Foods) on the ground of alleged serious misconduct – where the applicant commenced a proceeding seeking relief including in relation to alleged contraventions of s 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) 79 days after his dismissal – where the applicant's originating application included an application for an interim injunction – where the respondents filed an interlocutory application seeking the dismissal of the proceeding on the basis that the Court lacked jurisdiction due to s 370 of the FW Act – whether s 370 of the FW Act precluded the applicant from bringing a general protections court application as defined in s 368(4) – whether the applicant was a "person entitled to apply under section 365" – whether s 370(b) of the FW Act is subject to an implied time limitation aligned with the time limit in s 366 for applying to the Fair Work Commission – held: no time limitation should be implied into s 370(b) – s 370 did not preclude the applicant from commencing this proceeding or the Court from making orders in relation to the applicant's dismissal – the respondents' interlocutory application dismissed. INDUSTRIAL LAW — interim reinstatement – where the applicant sought interim reinstatement pursuant to s 545(2) of the FW Act – where Thomas Foods accepted that the applicant had a prima facie case that his dismissal was in contravention of s 340 of the FW Act – whether the balance of convenience favoured the reinstatement of the applicant to his employment on an interim basis – Thomas Foods identified delay and organisational changes as factors weighing against reinstatement – the applicant identified impacts on his income, work prospects, and mental health as factors weighing in favour of reinstatement – held: the balance of convenience favoured the interim reinstatement of the applicant on a prospective basis – interim reinstatement ordered.