Alexa Miller v East Kimberley CDEP Pty Ltd
[2012] FWA 8498
•3 OCTOBER 2012
[2012] FWA 8498 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Alexa Miller
v
East Kimberley CDEP Pty Ltd
(U2012/3880)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY | PERTH, 3 OCTOBER 2012 |
Termination of employment.
Background
[1] This matter concerns an application lodged by Ms Alexa Miller (the Applicant) asserting that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment by East Kimberley CDEP Pty Ltd (the Respondent).
[2] The manner in which this matter was dealt with is explained in the matter concerning the Applicant’s mother, Mrs Samantha Miller, 1 and an application she lodged regarding her termination of employment with the same Respondent.
Consideration
[3] The Respondent here asserts that there was not a termination at the initiative of the employer.
[4] The submissions and statements in support of that contention are as follows:
- The then office Manager, Mrs Alison Vos, provided a statement that on the afternoon of 13 December 2011 she overheard the Applicant advise her mother that “she had quit her job”.
- Dr Kate Davies heard the Applicant state to the Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent, Mr Vos that “she quit”.
- Miss Amy Thompson, an administrative assistant for the Respondent, overheard Ms Samantha Miller state to another employee on 14 December 2011 that “she quit”, referring to the Applicant, and that “I’m glad she quit”.
[5] Importantly Mr Vos, in the Objection lodged to the application which was signed by him, stated as follows:
“...Alexa spoke with the CEO of EKCDEP (“CEO”) following a situation where Alexa’s work practices were questioned by the CEO. During that meeting, Alexa expressed that she was “not happy at work” and would “quit” her job and “look for a new one.” The CEO clarified with her that she was resigning and to that Alexa replied “yes.” The CEO accepted her resignation.”
[6] It is clear that the Applicant did resign on 13 December 2011. The context of the resignation was one where she was being disciplined by Mr Vos. In the Applicant’s submissions she outlined a series of allegations about the conduct towards her in the office of the Respondent. However, it is clear that the Applicant’s resignation arose out of a discussion she held with Mr Vos on 13 December 2011. Her version asserts the discussion was heated and presumably argumentative. It seems to me that the incidents the Applicant raises prior to this discussion are matters of concern about concerns she held before the discussions regarding her treatment before that discussion. They do not appear to have been raised until after her resignation. In any event, I do not consider those events, even in combination with the nature of the discussion on 13 December 2011, to have been ones that forced the Applicant to resign.
[7] I also do not consider that the Applicant, by the nature of the discussion or the events that led up to it on 13 December 2011, was forced to resign.
[8] I find that the termination of the Applicant’s employment was not at the employer’s initiative.
[9] The application is therefore dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
1 PR529825
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR529824>
0
0
0