DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Aleesha Lawrence
v
Bare Skin & Beauty
(C2021/941)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAKE

BRISBANE, 15 APRIL 2021

Application to deal with contravention involving dismissal – permission to appear under s. 596 refused – application to amend an application from s.365 to s.773 under s.586 – amendment granted – determination of whether the application made outside of statutory timeframe – application filed in time

[1] On 22 February 2021, Ms Aleesha Lawrence (the Applicant) lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) pursuant to s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for the Commission to deal with a general protections dispute in relation to her dismissal by Bare Skin & Beauty (the Respondent).

[2] Further to my ex tempore decision recorded in the transcript of 12 April 2021, I have summarised my findings as follows.

[3] The Applicant sought permission to be represented by a lawyer in this matter. Pursuant to s.596(2) of the Act, I determined to refuse that request. 1

[4] I am satisfied that, pursuant to s.586, it is appropriate to amend the application from an application make under s.365 to an application made under s.773, pursuant to s.586 of the Act.

[5] Given the construction of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), I was satisfied that the Applicant filed the application within time.

[6] I proceeded to conduct the conference pursuant to s.776 of the Act. The matter did not resolve.

[7] I am satisfied that all reasonable attempts to resolve the dispute have been unsuccessful.

[8] Accordingly I issued a certificate pursuant to s.776(3) of the Act. The matter is now closed. I order accordingly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 Wellparks Holdings Pty Ltd t/as ERGT Australia v Mr Kevin Govender [2021] FWCFC 268.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Aleesha Lawrence, brought proceedings against Bare Skin & Beauty, her former employer, regarding an unfair dismissal. The matter came before the court on an application by the employer to address a contravention of an order involving the applicant's dismissal. The employer sought permission to appear under section 596, which was refused by the court. The applicant then sought to amend her application from section 365 to section 773 under section 586. The court considered the application for leave to amend and assessed whether the application was made outside the statutory timeframe. The court ultimately determined that the application was filed within the requisite timeframe and granted the amendment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's application to amend was within the statutory timeframe. The applicant sought to amend her application from section 365 to section 773 under section 586. The court assessed whether the application was made within the period prescribed by the relevant legislation. The court held that the application was made in time, and therefore, the applicant was entitled to amend her application. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and applied them to the facts of the case to arrive at its decision.

In reaching its decision, the court applied the statutory provisions relevant to the amendment of applications. The court considered the legislative framework governing the amendment of applications and the timeframes within which such amendments could be made. The court found that the applicant's application to amend was within the statutory timeframe and, therefore, the amendment was granted. The court took into account the relevant provisions of the legislation and applied them to the specific circumstances of the case. The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the statutory provisions and their application to the facts of the matter.

The court granted the applicant's application to amend her application from section 365 to section 773 under section 586. The court determined that the application was filed within the statutory timeframe and, therefore, the amendment was permitted. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and their application to the specific circumstances of the case. The court's ruling allowed the applicant to proceed with her amended application, which was a significant outcome in the proceedings against her former employer.

Aleesha Lawrence v Bare Skin & Beauty

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established