Unfair Dismissal Application — Grounds & Submissions (Form F2, Australia)

Unfair Dismissal Application — Grounds and Submissions

In Support Of An Application To The Fair Work Commission Under S 394 Of The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) · 9 June 2026

To the Fair Work Commission,

I, Daniel R. Okafor, apply for an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in respect of my dismissal by Northbridge Logistics Pty Ltd, which took effect on 26 May 2026. These grounds and submissions accompany my Form F2. I say that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of section 385 of the Act, and I ask the Commission for the remedy set out below.

Applicant: Daniel R. Okafor
Employer (respondent): Northbridge Logistics Pty Ltd (ABN 54 112 889 047)
Position held: Warehouse Team Leader, engaged as a full-time employee
Employment commenced: 3 February 2023
Telephone: 0413 778 204
Email: daniel.okafor@email.com.au

Date the dismissal took effect: 26 May 2026
Nature of the dismissal: summary dismissal (dismissed without notice).
The 21-day period to apply under section 394(2) therefore runs from the following day and ends on 16 June 2026 (if that day is a public holiday it moves to the next business day). The application must reach the Commission by 11:59 pm on the final day; the Commission may allow further time only in exceptional circumstances (section 394(3)).

I was summarily dismissed for "serious misconduct" after a single disputed stocktake discrepancy. I was given no warning, no chance to explain, and was refused a support person at the meeting. The discrepancy was a system error later corrected by the night shift, and three years of clean performance reviews were ignored.

I ask the Commission to order reinstatement and, if the Commission is satisfied reinstatement is inappropriate, compensation in lieu. I understand that under section 390 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) the Commission must first consider whether reinstatement is appropriate, and may order compensation under section 392 only where it is satisfied that reinstatement is inappropriate.

In deciding whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission must take each of the matters in section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) into account. As McHugh and Gummow JJ explained in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410, a dismissal may be unjust because the employee was not guilty of the conduct relied on, unreasonable because it rested on inferences that could not reasonably be drawn, or harsh in its consequences or because it is disproportionate to the conduct. I make the following submissions against the criteria:

(a) No valid reason (s 387(a)): There was no valid reason for the dismissal relating to my capacity or conduct. A valid reason must be "sound, defensible or well founded" and not capricious, fanciful or prejudiced (Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371). The reason relied on does not meet that standard on the facts set out below.

(b) Not notified of the reason (s 387(b)): I was not notified of the reason for the dismissal in clear terms before the decision to dismiss was made, so I had no genuine chance to address it.

(c) No opportunity to respond (s 387(c)): I was not given a real opportunity to respond to the reason relating to my capacity or conduct before the decision was made.

(d) Support person refused (s 387(d)): The employer unreasonably refused to allow me a support person to assist at discussions relating to the dismissal.

(e) No warning about performance (s 387(e)): The dismissal was said to relate to unsatisfactory performance, yet I was not warned about that performance, or given a reasonable opportunity to improve, before being dismissed.

The Commission must also weigh the size of the employer's enterprise and any absence of dedicated human resource expertise (s 387(f)-(g)) and any other relevant matters (s 387(h)).

The facts in support: On 22 May 2026 the operations manager called me into a meeting, told me a stocktake showed a 4,200 AUD shortfall and dismissed me on the spot for serious misconduct. I asked to have a colleague present and was refused. I was not told the basis of the figure and was given no opportunity to respond. The shortfall was a scanning error in the warehouse management system, corrected by the night shift on 24 May 2026 and confirmed in the corrected stock report. I had no prior warnings and my last performance review (March 2026) was rated "exceeds expectations".

Under section 396 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) the Commission decides four initial matters before the merits: whether the application was made within time, whether I am a person protected from unfair dismissal, whether the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, and whether it was a case of genuine redundancy. I address them as follows.

Minimum employment period: I have completed the minimum employment period of 6 months required by section 383 of the Act for an employer that is not a small business, so I am a person protected from unfair dismissal under section 382.
Award / agreement coverage: My employment is covered by the Road Transport and Distribution Award 2020 (MA000038).
High income threshold: I am covered by a modern award or enterprise agreement, so the high income threshold does not exclude me from protection.
Genuine redundancy: This was not a case of genuine redundancy within section 389 — my role was not genuinely redundant and the consultation and redeployment obligations were not met.

The following evidence supports this application and is provided so that it is before the Commission at conciliation and, if necessary, at hearing:
1. Corrected stock report from the warehouse management system (dated 24 May 2026) — the 4,200 AUD discrepancy was a scanning error, corrected by the night shift
2. Performance review record (dated March 2026) — rating of "exceeds expectations" with no conduct concerns
3. Email requesting a support person and the manager's refusal (dated 22 May 2026) — the request for, and refusal of, a support person at the dismissal meeting
All listed items are enclosed with these submissions.
Notes on the evidence: No warning letter or show-cause notice exists, because none was ever issued — the dismissal was decided in a single meeting.

Reinstatement (s 390-391): Reinstatement is the primary remedy and is appropriate here. My role remains filled by a labour-hire worker and the relationship with my immediate team is intact; reinstatement to the Warehouse Team Leader position is practical, and I ask for an order maintaining continuity of service and restoring lost pay.

Compensation (s 392): If reinstatement is not ordered, I seek compensation for the remuneration I have lost and would have earned but for the dismissal. The amount is assessed on the approach in Sprigg v Paul's Licensed Festival Supermarket (1998) 88 IR 21 — estimating the remuneration I would have received, deducting earnings and contingencies — and is capped at the lesser of my remuneration in the 26 weeks before the dismissal or half the high income threshold ($91,550 for a dismissal on or after 1 July 2025). Compensation does not include any amount for shock, distress or humiliation. My gross weekly pay was 1,485.00 AUD.

Steps to mitigate loss: I registered with two transport recruitment agencies the week after the dismissal and have applied for 11 comparable roles. I began casual shifts at a different warehouse on 9 June 2026 earning about 620 AUD a week, which should be deducted from any compensation.

Other loss: I have also lost employer superannuation contributions of 12% on my ordinary earnings and the notice I would have been entitled to had the dismissal been on notice rather than summary.

I ask that this matter be listed for conciliation in the first instance, and I am willing to take part in conciliation in good faith. If it is not resolved, I ask that it proceed to a conference or hearing for determination. I confirm that the Fair Work Commission is the correct body for this application — it is not a matter for the Fair Work Ombudsman — and I look forward to the Commission's directions.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,