Legal Research
Cases
Adams v Blamey Community Group

Adams v Blamey Community Group

Link copied

Case Copied 21 October 2016 14 min read

Contents

On this page

[2016] FWCFB 7202

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Christina Adams
v
Blamey Community Group
(C2016/4990)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY
COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC

SYDNEY, 21 OCTOBER 2016

Permission to appeal against decision [[2016] FWC 4899] of Senior Deputy President Hamberger at Sydney on 2 August 2016 in matter number U2015/14144.

Introduction

[1] On 21 August 2016 Ms Christina Adams lodged a notice of appeal in which she applied for permission to appeal and appealed under s.604 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) against a decision of Senior Deputy President Hamberger issued on 2 August 2016 1 (Decision). In the Decision, the Senior Deputy President found that Ms Adams’ dismissal by the Blamey Community Group on 24 October 2015 was a case of “genuine redundancy”, as that expression is defined in s.389 of the FW Act, and consequently dismissed her application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[2] The Blamey Community Group (BCG) is a not-for-profit organisation which provides support to families of Australian Defence Force members in the Wagga Wagga region. Its funding is almost entirely derived from grants received from the Department of Defence’s Family Support Funding Program (FSFP). Such grants are usually made on an annual basis, and are required to be authorised by the Minister for Defence upon the recommendations of the Family Support Advisory Committee. Ms Adams was employed by BCG as its co-ordinator in 2014. Throughout her employment, she was the sole employee of BCG. The officers and executive committee of BCG consisted of volunteer community members.

[3] On 24 October 2015 Ms Adams was informed by letter signed by BCG’s President that her employment was terminated. The letter relevantly stated:

“As per our phone conversation on the 23 October 2015, the new executive committee team of the Blamey Community Centre met to discuss the future direction of the business and whether at this point in time, a Co-Ordinator was required to continue running the centre due to the level of financial difficulty the community centre is currently faced with.

The result of this meeting was that it was agreed that there is no longer a viable position for a paid Co-Ordinator to maintain running the day to day operation; and the centre will be maintained by volunteers in a care-taker mode until clear strategic direction is formed by the committee. As the co-ordination position is on a Casual employment basis, and subject to sufficient funding, the current position has been made redundant.”

[4] Ms Adams lodged an unfair dismissal remedy application on 9 November 2015.

[5] Under s.385(d) of the FW Act, one of the requirements for an unfair dismissal is that it “was not a case of genuine redundancy”. Under s.396(d), whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy is one of four matters which the Commission must decide before dealing with the merits of any unfair dismissal remedy application. Section 389 defines “genuine redundancy”…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Adams v Blamey Community Group and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] FWCFB 7202
Decision Date: 21 OCTOBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Adams v Blamey Community Group, the applicant sought permission to appeal against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute arose from an employment matter concerning the applicant's dismissal and subsequent claim for unfair dismissal. The case was heard by Senior Deputy President Hamberger at Sydney on 2 August 2016 in matter number U2015/14144.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established grounds sufficient to warrant an appeal against the decision of the Federal Circuit Court. Specifically, the court was tasked with evaluating the merits of the applicant's arguments regarding the dismissal and the fairness of the process leading to it. This included assessing the applicant's claims that the dismissal was not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

In examining the application, the court considered the arguments presented by the applicant, the findings of the original decision, and the applicable legal principles. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision contained an error of law or that there was a significant procedural irregularity that warranted an appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to provide compelling grounds that would justify setting aside the original decision. As a result, the application was unsuccessful.

Orders