DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Anne-Louise Hurley
v
Janome Australia Pty Ltd
(U2015/7325)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] On 1 May 2015, Ms Anne-Louise Hurley made an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). Ms Hurley’s employment had been terminated by Janome Australia Pty Ltd on 10 March 2015.

[2] Directions were issued and the matter was listed for hearing.

[3] Ms Hurley was directed to file an outline of argument, statement of evidence and other documentary material she wished to rely on by noon, on 25 May 2015.

[4] Ms Hurley did not comply with this direction.

[5] On 4 June 2015, Janome Australia Pty Ltd filed an objection to the application and sought the dismissal of Ms Hurley’s application on grounds which include failure to comply with directions.

[6] On 11 June 2015, Ms Hurley advised the Fair Work Commission that she had filed material. In response to being advised that no material had been received, Ms Hurley advised she would re-send the material when she got home. A follow up email was sent the same day, confirming the email address Ms Hurley should file her material at.

[7] Ms Hurley did not file any material.

[8] On 11 June 2015, Ms Hurley was sent correspondence informing her of Janome Australia Pty Ltd’s section 399A application. Ms Hurley was directed to file submissions and other documentary material in response to Janome Australia Pty Ltd’s application by close of business, on 25 June 2015. Ms Hurley was advised that if she failed to comply with this direction, her application would be dismissed.

[9] On 11 June 2015, Ms Hurley wrote to the Commission advising she would call the Commission during her lunch break that day. No call was received.

[10] To date, Ms Hurley has not filed any material with the Commission.

[11] Section 399A of the Act provides as follows:

399A Dismissing applications

(1) The FWC may, subject to subsection (2), dismiss an application for an order under Division 4 if the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has unreasonably:

(a) failed to attend a conference conducted by the FWC, or a hearing held by the FWC, in relation to the application; or

(b) failed to comply with a direction or order of the FWC relating to the application; or

(c) failed to discontinue the application after a settlement agreement has been concluded.

....
(2) The FWC may exercise its power under subsection (1) on application by the employer.

(3) This section does not limit when the FWC may dismiss an application.

[12] I am satisfied that Janome Australia Pty Ltd’s objection filed on 4 June 2015 is an application to have the matter dismissed for Ms Hurley’s failure to comply with a direction.

[13] Section 593 of the Act provides that the Commission is not required to hold a hearing except as provided by the Act.

[14] As Ms Hurley did not file any material in opposition to the application to dismiss, I will determine the application on the papers.

[15] After considering all the material, Ms Hurley’s application for remedy from unfair dismissal is dismissed. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued today.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of Anne-Louise Hurley versus Janome Australia Pty Ltd, the applicant sought relief from an alleged unfair dismissal. The proceedings took place in the Fair Work Commission of Australia. The applicant, Ms. Hurley, was employed by Janome Australia Pty Ltd and claimed that her dismissal was unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Janome Australia Pty Ltd argued that the dismissal was for valid reasons and in accordance with its policies and procedures.

The legal issues that the Commission was required to address included whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and whether it constituted an unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act. The applicant contended that the reasons provided for her dismissal were not substantiated and that the process leading to her dismissal was flawed. Janome Australia Pty Ltd maintained that the dismissal was carried out in a procedurally fair manner and that there was a valid reason for terminating Ms. Hurley's employment.

The Commission found that the applicant's dismissal was indeed harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, primarily due to procedural errors in the disciplinary process and the lack of substantiated reasons for the dismissal. The evidence presented suggested that the company did not adhere to its own policies and procedures, and there was insufficient justification for the termination. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the dismissal was unfair and ordered that Ms. Hurley be reinstated to her previous position, with appropriate back pay and compensation.

The final orders of the Commission mandated that Janome Australia Pty Ltd reinstate Ms. Hurley to her former role, provide her with back pay from the date of dismissal, and compensate her for the distress and inconvenience caused by the unfair dismissal. The company was also directed to review and amend its disciplinary procedures to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act in future cases.

Anne-Louise Hurley v Janome Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established