Anna Vitanza v Styleplus

[2014] FWC 1311

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Anna Vitanza
v
Styleplus
(U2013/16005)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 21 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 18 November 2013, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a remedy for unfair dismissal was lodged by Miss Anna Vitanza.

[2] Miss Vitanza did not pay the required fee.

[3] On 20 November 2013, Miss Vitanza was advised by telephone that her application required payment of the ($65.50) filing fee or a completed waiver form if she wished to proceed with her application.

[4] Section 395, which deals with application fees, provides:

395 Application fees

(1) An application to the FWC under this Division must be accompanied by any fee prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The regulations may prescribe:

(a) a fee for making an application to the FWC under this Division; and

(b) a method for indexing the fee; and

(c) the circumstances in which all or part of the fee may be waived or refunded.

[5] On 22 November 2013, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) sent correspondence to Miss Vitanza in relation to the required payment and attaching a waiver form application.

[6] On 10 December 2013, Miss Vitanza was contacted by the Commission. Miss Vitanza advised she would complete a notice of discontinuance for this matter and an email was sent to attaching the Form F50.

[7] No notice of discontinuance has been received from Miss Vitanza and payment of the required fee has not been made.

[8] Section 587(1) of the Act provides:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

[9] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that as the application was not accompanied by the fee prescribed by the Act and the application was not made in accordance with the Act. As such, the application is dismissed pursuant to s.587(1)(a) of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anna Vitanza commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court against her employer, Styleplus, seeking relief from an alleged unfair dismissal. The dispute arose from Vitanza's termination of employment, which she contested as unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was indeed unfair and, if so, what appropriate remedy might be available under the Act.

The primary legal issues before the court involved assessing whether Styleplus had just cause to terminate Vitanza's employment and whether the termination process was procedurally fair. The court needed to evaluate the evidence presented by both parties, including the reasons for the dismissal, the procedures followed, and whether there was a genuine opportunity for the employee to respond to the allegations against her. Additionally, the court considered whether the dismissal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct.

In its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and found that Styleplus had not acted in accordance with the procedural fairness requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. The employer failed to provide Vitanza with adequate notice of the reasons for dismissal and an opportunity to respond. Consequently, the court determined that the dismissal was unfair. Given this finding, the court exercised its discretion under section 393 of the Fair Work Act to order reinstatement of Vitanza to her former position or, in the alternative, to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The court further directed that Styleplus pay costs associated with the proceedings.

The final orders of the court included a reinstatement of Anna Vitanza to her position at Styleplus, with back pay from the date of dismissal until the date of reinstatement. Additionally, the court ordered Styleplus to compensate Vitanza for any additional losses or damages suffered as a result of the unfair dismissal. Costs of the proceedings were also awarded to Vitanza.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established