‘Wholly incompetent’: Fair Work savages man’s legal representative over bizarre unfair dismissal claims

A “non-paid representative” acting in an unfair dismissal case has been savaged by the Fair Work Commission, with the deputy president calling him “wholly incompetent” and “belligerent”.

The Fair Work Commission has savaged a “non-paid representative” for his conduct in a man’s unfair dismissal case, including his bizarre claims that vaccines were part of a “clinical trial”.

Alex Smith’s filings on behalf of his client Nigel Stock were torn to shreds in a published judgment after Mr Stock unsuccessfully sued his employer for unfair dismissal in May.

Mr Stock had sued his Victorian employer Rocla after he was fired from his manufacturing job for refusing to get vaccinated.

His application was dismissed, with the commission finding his dismissal was not harsh or unjust.

Rocla subsequently filed a costs application, arguing they had incurred significant expenses from the proceedings by Mr Stock’s pursuit of the matter.

During the case Mr Smith – who acted as a “non-paid representative” for Mr Stock – claimed there was “vast” amounts of information about Covid-19 vaccines being part of a “clinical trial” while making reference to “living men and women”.

The Fair Work Commission said Alex Smith, who was acting as a “non-paid representative” in an unfair dismissal case, had behaved belligerently and was “wholly incompetent” during the proceedings.

“It is the absolute fact that no law exists permitting coercion/pressure with threat and menace to participate in a clinical trial, in this instance, the CLAIMED COVID-19 clinical trial vaccine,” one of his submissions reads.

“The application for Costs is DECLINED, DECLINED, DECLINED … any further actions will be seen as deliberate vexatious and malicious conduct towards Nigel STOCK (COSTS RESPONDENT).”

Fair Work Commission deputy president Richard Clancy branded Mr Smith as “stubborn, misguided and almost wholly incompetent”.

He noted Mr Smith had acted in multiple other cases before the commission – all of which were unsuccessful.

Mr Clancy said Mr Stock’s representative was “reckless to the point of deleterious”.

“My experience of Mr Smith was that despite evincing an attitude to the commission that was belligerent, verging on dismissive, he has nonetheless been intent on persisting with certain submissions,” Mr Clancy said.

During another case, Mr Smith sent correspondence to a line manager accusing him of criminal conduct and “threatening his arrest,” Mr Clancy said.

“Mr Stock relied on notices prepared by (Mr Smith) that in my view comprised “a disparate collection of concepts and assertions that lacked a coherent thread,” Mr Clancy said.

Mr Clancy did not make a costs order against Mr Stock, finding he had the “misfortune” to fall under the guidance of the “stubborn, misguided and almost wholly incompetent” Mr Smith.

Because Mr Smith was not a lawyer or paid agent, no costs were ordered against him.

Mr Clancy said: “As things currently stand, there is a regulatory gap when it comes to individuals such as Mr Smith who impose themselves on the commission’s processes with all care, no responsibility and no ‘skin in the game’.”